Dawkins Faith Head Thread Page 3

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=80648...
Login Register
Username: visit Password: | Log me on automatically each
Go to RichardDawkins.net | Social | Store | OUT Campaign | Disclaimer | Search the Forum
Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins

Forum rules Post a reply 85 posts Page 3 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959165)

by Paula Kirby Sun May 03, 2009 3:45 pm
1 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Electric Sheep wrote:Paula Kirby I think that you have raised a very good point there. How many atheists are comfortable with debating theists? I am guessing but I would imagine it is the minority. But we need the number of atheist that are willing to debate and openly question religion to increase. This will not happen if atheist becomes synonymous with abusive terms and people. Also we need the in the closet atheist to come out. This again will not happen if atheist becomes associated with disrespecting people. As atheist we have to behave in a dignified manor. We have to retain the moral high ground, because we cannot maintain that we have the logical and rational position otherwise.
Thank you, Electric Sheep. But whilst I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, I'd just like to differ in the use of vocabulary. These days I avoid the word "respect" altogether in this context, because people demanding "respect" for religious beliefs invariably mean "Don't challenge my beliefs!" And I'm not up for that! I will challenge their beliefs very very hard indeed (I am proud to be a 'militant atheist'!), and I will challenge the privileged position of religion in our society very very hard indeed too. I absolutely do NOT respect religious belief. I am opposed to it on every conceivable level - the rational, the moral, and - er - have run out of levels, but if anyone else can think of any, I don't mind betting I'm opposed to it on those as well! But we have to decide whether we're serious about this campaign, or whether we really just want to be rowdy spectators at a bear fight. How do organisations in OTHER spheres go about raising support for their cause? We can learn a LOT from business here. I know there's a lot of hostility to business, but I have worked in academia, for charities, AND for business, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that business people are extremely switched on. If it's rationality, clear-thinking and effectiveness you want - I know which sector you're most likely to find it in! (Banks excluded - obviously. ) How do businesses persuade people to buy their product? Is it by persuasion? By creating a good image of what they're offering? Or is it by telling them they're contemptible if they don't buy it? How do charities persuade people to support them? Is it by an appeal to their conscience? By creating the sense that they'll be really good people if they support this cause? Or is it by telling them they're bastards if they don't? Why do major corporations - not noted for spending money that it's not in their interests to spend - invest hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds each year on PR, to improve their image? Why do businesses permit their employees to be as rude as they like about the competitors and customers within four walls, but fire them if they repeat their remarks in a company email?
2 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Top

by Layla Nasreddin Sun May 03, 2009 4:17 pm
3 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
lordpasternack wrote:Yes - it seems quite odd that for all Richard knows about how starting off nice is the best policy - he has on a few occasions started off sardonic in the extreme with some of the visitors who've come to this site (some of which were sincere - probably to Richard's embarrassment) - and is now suggesting that perhaps rolling out sardonicism as a broad policy is a good idea. Fence-sitters and tentative doubters are, IMHO, a lot more likely to be soured by that approach, and convinced more by cool, calm and collected candour. And I mean, Richard cannot know who is "irremediable". Myself, yourself, Sciwoman, John Lombard, Layla Nasreddin and Nate Phelps - to name just a few known to this site who spring to mind - were all previously religious fundamentalists, or at least the beyond-hope offspring of one of the most frothing mad religious wingnuts of our day. We all ticked our own combination of boxes: Sciwoman was protesting outside abortion clinics, John Lombard was a Christian missionary, Layla became Muslim and still owns one of those big black robes with a head-covering and face veil (which isn't technically a burqa, to mind - as a burqa obscures even the eyes, through a gauze), Nate was the son of a frothing religious wingnut, and I don't know about you, but I was at church every Sunday.
Well, I rarely wore the burqa, actually! (There are a couple of different garments that are referred to by that name, which means 'hood' -- the Afghan burqa, which we all know and hate, and the Saudi or Gulf burqa, which is a long veil to cover the face. It may or may not have a piece of cloth over that to cover the eyes, and you can put the cloth over your head if you want to see, lowering it if you want to hide your eyes). I never thought that Allah demanded I cover my face; if I was inclined that way, that's because I'm shy and liked the idea of hiding from the world. That said, one thing that gave me a bit of frisson of pleasure about converting to Islam was the fact that so many of the 'elite' or the 'intellectual class' (I don't know how to put it without being insulting!) had these negative ideas of Islam and religion generally, and forcing them to confront a woman in the flesh who had embraced the religion would really be a shock to their preconceptions. Of course, the truth was that I was often too timid to let anybody know that I was at all religious and also because I didn't want to force my religion on anybody, but I could identify a bit with the stories of other women who had converted or had re-embraced Islam who gave similar reasons -- 'I wanted to show that an intelligent, educated woman CAN be religious!' The phenomenon of embracing a very traditional religion to be 'counter-cultural'. Many girls have said they took up wearing the hijab as a public affirmation of their religion in the face of widespread negativity, or perhaps in opposition to the French or Turkish bans, that kind of thing. With such a mindset, insults and denigration will be only a spur to more overt displays of religiosity. I think perhaps we're underestimating the value a lot of religions place on being quoteunquote 'persecuted' by being made fun of, insulted, held in contempt, etc. To them, it is a praiseworthy thing to be a 'witness' for the religion, braving the taunts and even blows of the unbelievers, something that will gain them 'brownie points' from the deity. Both the Bible and Qur'an have passages about how the unbelievers think that the religious teachings being preached are ridiculous and sheer folly, but go on to say that 'but we know that we're right because God has said so' or 'they'll be singing a different tune on the Day of Judgement, when the truth is made manifest to them!' These religions have been the target
4 of 22 5/5/2009 22:06
Top

by rationalmind Sun May 03, 2009 4:30 pm
The key thing here is something called "Cognitive Framing" where you chose your words and terms to project the idea more effectively. Examples would be calling cigarettes "cancer sticks" or describing the story of the Garden of Eden as being about "two nudists taking dietary advice from a talking snake". In the former you are creating a feeling of revulsion and in the later emphasising how ridiculous it is. The "imaginary friend" meme is a brilliant example because it does explain how theists see their deities and it simultaneously marks it as something very childish that they should have grown out of. We need imagery like this that describes things as they are but creates the correct impression. "Faith-head" is not a bad example of this. Top

by Matt H. Sun May 03, 2009 4:37 pm
5 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Richard Dawkins wrote:Well, I entirely see the point about derogatory words turning people off. That was exactly why I was so hesitant about proposing a 'gloves-off' policy. I realised that the gloves-off policy carried that calculated risk. But it was a calculated risk. If you go along with the gloves-off policy, then you implicitly go along with a certain amount of insult to the faith-heads. I even used the phrase 'naked contempt' in my 'gloves-off' post. Maybe that was going too far, which again was why my proposal was made in a tentative manner. I actually don't think 'faith-head' is so very insulting: not a real Styrer-style profanity, and nothing like the sort of vitriol that the faith-heads regularly dish out to us. I would call 'faith-head' needling rather than vicious, and miles from vitriolic. It needles, because it carries the implication that religion is a drug. If any of you have read my 'Gerin Oil' article, surely you wouldn't call that vicious or vitriolic. It is sardonic, rather, and I think the same is true of 'faith-head'. I am still very much open to argument here, but I think some people are exaggerating the level of insult that 'faith-head' conveys. I think it has a subtlety that disarms the insult. Richard
I think we should attack the ideas, not the people. The way I see it, the word 'religious' gets the job done. I know the religious use the word 'atheist' like a slur, wrinkling their noses in disgust and putting emphasis on the a. But I see no need to sink to their level. It is when people start calling each other names that you know you've lost all hope for any kind of civil discussion. Top

by Electric Sheep Sun May 03, 2009 4:42 pm
6 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
rationalmind wrote:The key thing here is something called "Cognitive Framing" where you chose your words and terms to project the idea more effectively. Examples would be calling cigarettes "cancer sticks" or describing the story of the Garden of Eden as being about "two nudists taking dietary advice from a talking snake". In the former you are creating a feeling of revulsion and in the later emphasising how ridiculous it is. The "imaginary friend" meme is a brilliant example because it does explain how theists see their deities and it simultaneously marks it as something very childish that they should have grown out of. We need imagery like this that describes things as they are but creates the correct impression. "Faith-head" is not a bad example of this.
I see the point that you are making. However I think the issue is that the term faith-head will be taken with great offence. It is a term that will likely cause the theist to immediately disengage with the atheist. The thing that we have to remember is not if we find a term offensive but if the theist will find the term offensive. It does not matter if there is justification for the offence if it is perceived then the theist will just stop listening. In my opinion the term faith-head and the connotation of drug addiction are completely unhelpful. The theist will see the term as a debate stopper and even worse it might cause him/her never to engage with an atheist in debate again. Top

by lordpasternack Sun May 03, 2009 5:11 pm
7 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Paula Kirby wrote:How do businesses persuade people to buy their product? Is it by persuasion? By creating a good image of what they're offering? Or is it by telling them they're contemptible if they don't buy it?
Actually, there have been, to mind, a few advertisers in the past which have laced their message with a "you must buy this product to be respectable"/"if you don't buy this product you will be contempted - or at least missing out terribly" double-edged sword. Most popular with products of yesteryear associated with parenting, I believe - since virtually no parent wants to feel that they're a bad parent, or denying their children opportunities, or looked down upon by other parents in the community. It's a strategy that can work - but I find it quite contemptible, and it's probably less effective than other means of persuasion. I can't find a decent source on the ASA website - but I'm pretty sure that it is now against advertising standards to imply directly in an advert that not purchasing a product/service will have a negative effect on a person. That also goes some way to explaining why you don't see the tactic used in adverts these days. How do charities persuade people to support them? Is it by an appeal to their conscience? By creating the sense that they'll be really good people if they support this cause? Or is it by telling them they're bastards if they don't?
They never say the latter, but the unspoken implication is clear.
You're a bastard if you don't. Why do businesses permit their employees to be as rude as they like about the competitors and customers within four walls, but fire them if they repeat their remarks in a company email?
Hmmm... I can think of one possible exception: http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=C5z0Ia5jDt4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5z0Ia5jDt4)
Last edited by lordpasternack (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=16409) on Sun May 03, 2009 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total. Top

by Paula Kirby Sun May 03, 2009 5:32 pm
8 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
They never say the latter, but the unspoken implication is clear.
Yes! I am not saying we have to be nice to the opposition. But by pointing out, vigorously, relentlessly, the lack of logic in their arguments, like the charities we are making the unspoken implication that their positions are stupid. That's much stronger than spelling it out. Top

by Tucking_Fypo! Sun May 03, 2009 5:45 pm
I tend to call them Jesus Freaks, Bible Bashers but this only applies to Christians . Top

by lordpasternack Sun May 03, 2009 5:53 pm
Tucking_Fypo! wrote:I tend to call them Jesus Freaks, Bible Bashers but this only applies to Christians .
And "DC Talk" has taken the first term and made it completely palatable to Jesus Freaks:
Top

by ficklefiend Sun May 03, 2009 6:19 pm
9 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Oh, oh! I forgot one that I actually do use in conversation- "God Squad". Top

Freedom Police is another one i've heard people use. Top

by mirandaceleste Sun May 03, 2009 6:59 pm
lordpasternack wrote: Tucking_Fypo! wrote:I tend to call them Jesus Freaks, Bible Bashers but this only applies to Christians .
And "DC Talk" has taken the first term and made it completely palatable to Jesus Freaks:
Ugh, I had forgotten about that! It came out when I was in high school (I attended a very religious high school) and I remember lots of the super-religious kids wearing "Jesus Freak" shirts and other such things. The song was also played at one of our mandatory school assemblies, and I can remember sitting in the gymnasium listening to most of the student body singing along with it while the cheerleaders did some sort of inane dance routine to it and thinking to myself "only one more year at this ridiculous school... only one more year..." I remember hearing the super-religious students say things like that they felt oppressed by horrible ( ) insults like "Jesus Freak" and that they were thus choosing to "reclaim" it as an expression of pride. That's absolutely ridiculous, though, because reclaiming a word or phrase in such a manner is only valid if a group has truly been oppressed and discriminated against and thus wants to reclaim various epithets that have been used against them and instead use them as a way to feel empowered and to strike back against those who have oppressed them. I think that that can be a very effective consciousness-raising tool and can also be both comforting and empowering to members of groups who truly have been systematically oppressed. However, Christians ARE NOT an oppressed group, no matter how much they like to play the victim and pretend that contemporary society is out to get them, and that, as one example of many, keeping prayer out of American public schools somehow oppresses their beliefs or whatever. Reclamation doesn't work in this situation because they haven't truly been oppressed. In actuality, most often, they are the ones acting in an oppressive manner towards those who do not share their faith or who violate their arbitrary "moral laws," which makes their claim to victimhood even more annoying and ironic. I mean, this isn't Diocletianic Rome or something. Their false claims to victimhood and clear martyrdom complex are so incredibly tiresome. Top
10 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06

mirandaceleste wrote:I remember hearing the super-religious students say things like that they felt oppressed by horrible ( ) insults like "Jesus Freak" and that they were thus choosing to "reclaim" it as an expression of pride. That's absolutely ridiculous, though, because reclaiming a word or phrase in such a manner is only valid if a group has truly been oppressed and discriminated against and thus wants to reclaim various epithets that have been used against them and instead use them as a way to feel empowered and to strike back against those who have oppressed them. I think that that can be a very effective consciousness-raising tool and can also be both comforting and empowering to members of groups who truly have been systematically oppressed. However, Christians ARE NOT an oppressed group, no matter how much they like to play the victim and pretend that contemporary society is out to get them, and that, as one example of many, keeping prayer out of American public schools somehow oppresses their beliefs or whatever. Reclamation doesn't work in this situation because they haven't truly been oppressed. In actuality, most often, they are the ones acting in an oppressive manner towards those who do not share their faith or who violate their arbitrary "moral laws," which makes their claim to victimhood even more annoying and ironic. I mean, this isn't Diocletianic Rome or something. Their false claims to victimhood and clear martyrdom complex are so incredibly tiresome.
See, I totally disagree. I think the idea of 'oppression' has a sizeable subjective component -- it's not so much about how much you're being oppressed, from others' point of view, but how much you think you're being oppressed. Fantastically wealthy Saudi princes feel that they, as Muslims, are being oppressed or denigrated by the rest of the world, especially the West, and the anger and indignation they feel about this is real. On the other hand, some Muslim women do not feel they are oppressed, are offended if you suggest they are, and claim to wear the veil and live in accordance with Islamic teachings about women out of their own free choice. Similarly, a lot of women in conservative religious traditions don't feel oppressed by their religions, in fact they'll claim that it's 'liberating' and will laugh at any feminist claiming otherwise. So I don't think you can deal with it by simply responding, "Well, you're not really oppressed, so shut up!" because the feelings of grievance won't just go away. Denying them their claim to oppression is more likely to feed into their delusions of persecution and victimhood ("waah, I'm being silenced!"). Now, I don't know how to deal with this, I admit. I suppose one could point out that there is real, actual, sometimes violent oppression of Christians for being Christians in places like Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea, but these American Christians may have no sense whatever of proportion! Top

by seals Sun May 03, 2009 7:31 pm
11 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Unfortunately it's shifting sands we're dealing with here, because so often words become loaded with connotations once they enter into frequent usage in the same sense by a certain group - which can happen to what should be perfectly neutral terms eg. unbeliever, atheist, godless. At least, the impression I have is that these words aren't ever intended as a compliment. It could vary according to location but with the internet, these attitudes have more likelihood of catching on. Actually the word "theist" seems not to be used much by the faithful, (I just noticed how even the word "faithful" has a positive connotation , no less effective even if it is borrowed), perhaps because it's a bit too clinical? The language itself is loaded in favour of religion, so the religious aren't even obliged to resort to name calling to have the desired disparaging effect. Is it even possible to have built in neutrality I wonder... or am I just getting paranoid... Top

by mirandaceleste Sun May 03, 2009 7:35 pm
Layla Nasreddin wrote: See, I totally disagree. I think the idea of 'oppression' has a sizeable subjective component -- it's not so much about how much you're being oppressed, from others' point of view, but how much you think you're being oppressed. Fantastically wealthy Saudi princes feel that they, as Muslims, are being oppressed or denigrated by the rest of the world, especially the West, and the anger and indignation they feel about this is real. On the other hand, some Muslim women do not feel they are oppressed, are offended if you suggest they are, and claim to wear the veil and live in accordance with Islamic teachings about women out of their own free choice. Similarly, a lot of women in conservative religious traditions don't feel oppressed by their religions, in fact they'll claim that it's 'liberating' and will laugh at any feminist claiming otherwise. So I don't think you can deal with it by simply responding, "Well, you're not really oppressed, so shut up!" because the feelings of grievance won't just go away. Denying them their claim to oppression is more likely to feed into their delusions of persecution and victimhood ("waah, I'm being silenced!"). Now, I don't know how to deal with this, I admit. I suppose one could point out that there is real, actual, sometimes violent oppression of Christians for being Christians in places like Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea, but these American Christians may have no sense whatever of proportion!
Those are great points. It's definitely a complicated issue, to be sure. I just don't have any sympathy when those who wield the power and control in society claim to feel oppressed or subjugated in any way. It's definitely subjective, I know, but I do think that it's important to look at it in the context of the presence or lack thereof of demonstrable systematic oppression instead of personal feelings of being oppressed. And I would certainly never tell anyone to shut up or anything similarly rude, but I do feel that it's important to remind Christians (primarily those who live in contemporary American society) how their feelings of being oppressed have no basis in reality. You're definitely right that they seem to lack any sense of proportion or perspective on this issue. Top
12 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06

ficklefiend wrote:Oh, oh! I forgot one that I actually do use in conversation- "God Squad". Haha, my mate just referred to them as the God Squad recently, she went on a trip and it was full of Theology students so she said she was on atrip with e God Squad lol. Top

by Matt H. Sun May 03, 2009 8:03 pm
Tucking_Fypo! wrote: ficklefiend wrote:Oh, oh! I forgot one that I actually do use in conversation- "God Squad". Haha, my mate just referred to them as the God Squad recently, she went on a trip and it was full of Theology students so she said she was on atrip with e God Squad lol.
I tend to associate that term with the happy-clappy evangelical types. At uni I had three friends who were doing Religion & Theology courses, one was an atheist, another was a moderate Christian, and only the third had stronger religious views (he was a creationist). Top

13 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
mirandaceleste wrote:Those are great points. It's definitely a complicated issue, to be sure. I just don't have any sympathy when those who wield the power and control in society claim to feel oppressed or subjugated in any way. It's definitely subjective, I know, but I do think that it's important to look at it in the context of the presence or lack thereof of demonstrable systematic oppression instead of personal feelings of being oppressed. And I would certainly never tell anyone to shut up or anything similarly rude, but I do feel that it's important to remind Christians (primarily those who live in contemporary American society) how their feelings of being oppressed have no basis in reality. You're definitely right that they seem to lack any sense of proportion or perspective on this issue.
Well, of course -- it goes without saying (I hope) that while you might acknowledge that a group might feel they're being oppressed, perhaps very strongly, you definitely shouldn't uncritically validate them! It's interesting how everybody sees other groups as oppressing them, and almost never how they're oppressing other people. Pious Christians or Muslims might feel horribly aggrieved by secularists, or even other Christians or Muslims whom they see as somehow endangering their religion, but they usually don't think for an instant about what they're doing to those of other religions or none. I suppose the Christian "Jesus Freaks" at your school never gave a thought to how an atheist might feel in such a religion-soaked environment, or if they'd cared if they had considered it. (Man, I guess I lucked out -- I never really came across any people like that at any of my [secular public] schools. Maybe I was just lucky enough to avoid them, since I was usually in the library... ) Top

by Gnomeyhead Sun May 03, 2009 8:45 pm
14 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Richard Dawkins wrote:It's a pity about the hyphen, but the hh in 'faithhead' looks awkward, and 'faithead' doesn't work either (except that it looks a bit like 'fathead'). Richard I quite like 'fathead'. ficklefiend wrote:Oh, oh! I forgot one that I actually do use in conversation- "God Squad". I don't know, it seems like adding the word 'squad' makes it sound cooler than it is. They might actually like 'God Squad' rather than be offended by it. I can imagine small children groups being referred to as a "God Squad" or even calling themselves that (ex/ maybe like a Boy Scout team). Ian Edmond wrote: Richard Dawkins wrote:And, by the way, the faith-heads really hate it, so it seems to be hitting home. That's precisely why I'm not keen on it. If the faithful decided on a common term for us, and settled on "fools" (after "The fool hath said..."), we'd be rightfully indignant. I think it's a mistake to go into battle with a term designed to denigrate your opponents. That's the first step on the path to dehumanising the opposition, and only serves to obscure the issues. Concentrate on the issues, not the personalities. And the moral high ground is a good place to occupy.
But isn't a term like 'fool' too vague to classify something? You could say 'fool' and people may not know exactly what/who you are talking about while using a word like 'faith-head' you are of course referring to someone of faith. Oh plus, I think a term like 'faith-head' isn't necessarily offensive...though they may not like it. Me thinks Faith + head =/= offensive. Top

by ficklefiend Sun May 03, 2009 10:17 pm
15 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Matt H. wrote: Tucking_Fypo! wrote: ficklefiend wrote:Oh, oh! I forgot one that I actually do use in conversation- "God Squad". Haha, my mate just referred to them as the God Squad recently, she went on a trip and it was full of Theology students so she said she was on atrip with e God Squad lol.
I tend to associate that term with the happy-clappy evangelical types. At uni I had three friends who were doing Religion & Theology courses, one was an atheist, another was a moderate Christian, and only the third had stronger religious views (he was a creationist).
My mum tells me there used to be a bus that travelled round the remoter parts of Scotland (she lived in Thurso) and it was sort of like a travelling youth club with much god bothering and acoustic guitars. That was the God squad to them. They didn't like the people, but they still went there, because they had ping pong. (and believe me, there is nothing to do in Thurso.) Top

Matt H. wrote: Tucking_Fypo! wrote: ficklefiend wrote:Oh, oh! I forgot one that I actually do use in conversation- "God Squad". Haha, my mate just referred to them as the God Squad recently, she went on a trip and it was full of Theology students so she said she was on atrip with e God Squad lol.
I tend to associate that term with the happy-clappy evangelical types. At uni I had three friends who were doing Religion & Theology courses, one was an atheist, another was a moderate Christian, and only the third had stronger religious views (he was a creationist). Apparently the Theology students were virtually happy clappers and were screaming at everything "ZOMG PRIMARK AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" "ZOMG THEY HAVE A CHURCH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" "ZOMG I HAVE ELBOWS AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" I am so glad i didn't go on that trip!!! As for whether Theology students being religious, i have no personal experience but i know someone who lives on a corridor with 3-4 theology students and according to him all of them are fairly religious and go to the Christian Union or Catholic society. Last edited by Tucking_Fypo! (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=72081) on Mon May 04, 2009 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total. Top

16 of 22 5/5/2009 22:06
by Durro Sun May 03, 2009 10:41 pm
Good morning from Down Under, I think that we have to remember that Richard was looking for a term that might be useful as a cultural meme and representative of the illogical nature of the magical aspects of religion. God squad, faithheads and other religion orientated terms may very well be embraced by the religious as a badge of honour. Insulting terms belittle our position and reinforce the perception that atheists are evil, bitter, unpleasant people who have rejected god's love, etc, etc. Without trying to sound like a broken record, I'd like to see a simple term in usage that captures the silliness of religion, associates it with other equally nonsensical practices and beliefs and yet is not outright aggressive or insulting towards others. And in framing the word, I've tried to imagine Richard or another high profile advocate for reason chatting on a national TV program or being interviewed on radio and portraying himself as a sensible, logical voice of reason. My conclusion is that a word like "supernaturalist" encompasses all of these needs. It immediately associates religion with magic and the non-evidential otherworldly, classes it in the same category as other silly beliefs like astrology, numerology and fortune telling, and is a term that gets it message across without being overtly aggressive, sarcastic or rude. Its use allows a high profile spokesperson like Richard to make his very valid point without coming across as any of the negative stereotypes that the religious attempt to portray us with. Cheers, Durro Top

by Electric Sheep Sun May 03, 2009 10:49 pm
17 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Durro wrote:Good morning from Down Under, I think that we have to remember that Richard was looking for a term that might be useful as a cultural meme and representative of the illogical nature of the magical aspects of religion. God squad, faithheads and other religion orientated terms may very well be embraced by the religious as a badge of honour. Insulting terms belittle our position and reinforce the perception that atheists are evil, bitter, unpleasant people who have rejected god's love, etc, etc. Without trying to sound like a broken record, I'd like to see a simple term in usage that captures the silliness of religion, associates it with other equally nonsensical practices and beliefs and yet is not outright aggressive or insulting towards others. And in framing the word, I've tried to imagine Richard or another high profile advocate for reason chatting on a national TV program or being interviewed on radio and portraying himself as a sensible, logical voice of reason. My conclusion is that a word like "supernaturalist" encompasses all of these needs. It immediately associates religion with magic and the non-evidential otherworldly, classes it in the same category as other silly beliefs like astrology, numerology and fortune telling, and is a term that gets it message across without being overtly aggressive, sarcastic or rude. Its use allows a high profile spokesperson like Richard to make his very valid point without coming across as any of the negative stereotypes that the religious attempt to portray us with. Cheers, Durro
+1 Good evening from above over Top

by Gnomeyhead Sun May 03, 2009 11:18 pm
18 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Durro wrote:Good morning from Down Under, I think that we have to remember that Richard was looking for a term that might be useful as a cultural meme and representative of the illogical nature of the magical aspects of religion. God squad, faithheads and other religion orientated terms may very well be embraced by the religious as a badge of honour. Insulting terms belittle our position and reinforce the perception that atheists are evil, bitter, unpleasant people who have rejected god's love, etc, etc. Without trying to sound like a broken record, I'd like to see a simple term in usage that captures the silliness of religion, associates it with other equally nonsensical practices and beliefs and yet is not outright aggressive or insulting towards others. And in framing the word, I've tried to imagine Richard or another high profile advocate for reason chatting on a national TV program or being interviewed on radio and portraying himself as a sensible, logical voice of reason. My conclusion is that a word like "supernaturalist" encompasses all of these needs. It immediately associates religion with magic and the non-evidential otherworldly, classes it in the same category as other silly beliefs like astrology, numerology and fortune telling, and is a term that gets it message across without being overtly aggressive, sarcastic or rude. Its use allows a high profile spokesperson like Richard to make his very valid point without coming across as any of the negative stereotypes that the religious attempt to portray us with. Cheers, Durro
While I generally agree with you, I don't think religious people refrain at all from using derogatory terms when it comes to atheists or people of other religion. I think an example of this would be the word 'heathen'. If a person of the Christian faith were to call someone a heathen they are most likely using it in a negative way but an atheist may just be able to simply laugh it off/not take it seriously. The word 'heathen' may have more effect on a person with another faith besides Christianity because faith is the core of many people's lives. I think the word 'supernaturalist' does more to be derogatory from the religious person's perspective because they wouldn't think what they believe is supernatural. An atheist would not think the term is as harsh because we of course think what they believe is supernatural. besleybean wrote: I do think in general, it is up to individuals to title themselves and to explain why.
I think that if everyone had to label themselves, everyone would go for the 'Righteous ones'
19 of 22 5/5/2009 22:06
Top

by Durro Mon May 04, 2009 4:05 am
20 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06
Gnomeyhead wrote: While I generally agree with you, I don't think religious people refrain at all from using derogatory terms when it comes to atheists or people of other religion.
Yes, and in doing so, they lose the moral superiority. While the rationalists calmly put forward their logical arguments and express a desire to see the truth in whatever form it takes, the supernaturalists resort to inflammatory accusations and refuse to consider alternatives to the writings from ignorant superstitious people taking advice from their imaginary friend. If we lower ourselves to the same level, then we lose a large part of our appeal which is to provide a sensible alternative to superstitions and act in a manner which refutes the theists' claims that we are evil, immoral bastards. If you were agnostic or midly religious with doubts, who would you tend to be most influenced by ? The reasonable person calmly making good points and substantiating them with real world evidence or the hysterical happy clapper and their 2000 year old fairy tales making inflammatory, unsubstantiated claims ? Gnomeyhead wrote: I think the word 'supernaturalist' does more to be derogatory from the religious person's perspective because they wouldn't think what they believe is supernatural. An atheist would not think the term is as harsh because we of course think what they believe is supernatural.
Magically popping the world into existence, noachian flood, Jonah in the whale, cures at Lourdes, faith healing by Benny Hinn, etc etc - it's all dependent on magic. Let's call it for what it is - a belief in the supernatural. And while we're at it, let's lessen its credibility by associating it with other nonsensical supernatural beliefs that I've outlined earlier. Picture an TV interview with Professor Dawkins...This is how I would see it going... Interviewer : Why is science so against religion ? Dawkins : Science seeks to pursue the truth in whatever form it takes and if the evidence led to supporting the existence of magic, then science would accept this. However, the real world evidence does not support magical explanations for natural phenomena, no matter how clever Penn and Teller or David Copperfield may be. Science is against any unsubstantiated supernatural belief, whether it be tarot card reading, astrology, or having an imaginary friend in the sky that reads your mind and uses magic to intervene on your behalf...but only sometimes, for he apparently works in mysterious ways. Interviewer : But religion isn't all about magic, is it ? The church provides fellowship and does wonderful charitable work, does it not ? Dawkins : Yes, some church organizations perform charitable work, but there are also some excellent secular organizations that perform charitable work - The Red Cross, Amnesty International, Medicines Sans Frontieres, to name a few examples. Charity and generosity, or working together to support your fellow human, isn't the sole realm of the religious. But
21 of 22 5/5/2009 22:06
Top PreviousNext Display posts from previous: Post a reply 85 posts Page 3 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Richard Dawkins
Sort by
Jump to:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: fryall, rationalmind and 8 guests
Go to RichardDawkins.net | Social | Store | OUT Campaign | Disclaimer

Powered by phpBB richarddawkins.net 2006 - 2007 Time : 0.147s | 9 Queries | GZIP : Off
22 of 22
5/5/2009 22:06

Dawkins Faith Head Thread Page 3

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dawkins Faith Head Thread Page 3

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Go to RichardDawkins.net | Social | Store | OUT Campaign | Disclaimer | Search the Forum

Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959165)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959213)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959239)

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959249)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959257)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959324)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Hmmm... I can think of one possible exception: http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=C5z0Ia5jDt4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5z0Ia5jDt4)

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959352)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959366)

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959373)

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959406)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959416)

Freedom Police is another one i've heard people use. Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959471)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959521)

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959540)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959553)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959592)

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959600)

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959672)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959685)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959896)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959914)

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959963)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

by Durro Sun May 03, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959999)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

+1 Good evening from above over Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1960091)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1960729)

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ...

Go to RichardDawkins.net | Social | Store | OUT Campaign | Disclaimer

Вам также может понравиться