KHarvey16 said:
I should have made my point more clear(I tried to in a previous response)...I'm not questioning why religious people have a problem with Dawkins. I can certainly see why someone criticizing their beliefs would upset them. I have an expectation regarding the reactions of religious people. I was wondering why non-believers have an issue with him, keeping in mind diplomacy is not a role he's chosen for himself.
It's not so much that he's questioning their beliefs, or that theists are inherently incapable of hearing dissenting opinions without reflexive fits of righteous outrage. (I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that's not what you were implying). It's more that there's really no good reason to take that approach in a time when atheists are already unfairly demonized. It's repellent, it confirms bad stereotypes and further entrenches people in their initial stances instead of inviting a better mutual understanding. It does nothing to foster or encourage a respectful, less hostile environment for discussion.
I mean, if you've been raised in a religious family that
wasn't overbearing and oppressive about it, and suddenly some guy is insulting you with an implication of stupidity for being dumb enough to worship a Flying Spaghetti Monster (undeniably, to anyone with a brain, an intentionally provocative image and concept), why
wouldn't you be offended? That's not quite the same thing as simply asking, "What rational foundation supports your religious beliefs?"
You can be completely confident in a stance without being explicitly insulting towards the opposition (as differentiated from someone trying to "woo" people from religion). He could achieve exactly what he wants to achieve--someone who tells atheists that their worldview is valid and that they shouldn't allow others to bully them into silence or submission--without being needlessly divisive... but he doesn't. His approach isn't immune from criticism simply because it's his "chosen role". Dawkins seems to have no respect for theists, or at least that's the way he comes off, so of course they don't like him. Why would they?
But he could be a lot worse, too. At least he's not Christopher Hitchens.
BrightYoungThing said:
It's true that the blame lies with people who automatically dismiss him and his beliefs because of his attitude but the fact remains that if you truly want to see scientific thought and secularist ideas embraced, those are the people you have to reach. To alienate them seems to go directly against that goal. Pleasing your friends and alienating your enemies will hardly make you or your goals popular, especially if you already constitute a minority.
Exactly. It's kind of like Charles Barkley's "I'm not a role model," crap. Sorry Chuck. You didn't get to make that decision. You were in the public eye and therefore you were.
Dawkins has no choice in the matter.
Kano On The Phone said:
I would defy you to try to explain to a grown person, one who believes with everything they are that the Tooth Fairy is real, that he doesn't exist without sounding a little bit arrogant.
That's a cop-out. You can easily explain to a theist the rationale behind an atheist stance without coming off like you're talking down to him/her. The fact that there are always going to be the high-strung fundamentalist weirdos who can't handle dissenting opinions and the mental discord they can create doesn't mean you're better off not trying to be respectful of other human beings when speaking to them.
If I were approached by a guy from a culture who actually believed the sun was a deity, I would find that a pretty quaint and silly concept, especially in 2009, but I definitely wouldn't speak down to him or belittle his faith. Neither would I go out of my way to tell a Scientology how hilariously tacky his religion is, despite the fact that I think it is. There's nothing to be gained from that.
Not that any post you've made in the thread deserves a serious response.
Stoney Mason said:
This is why even though I love South Park and that episode it is completely missing the point. The spaghetti monster is a construct to say we would be laughed at for believing in and constructing our society around concepts which we would normally find laughable and have no basis in reason.
Take Xenu and the way gaf loves to respond to that even though it's just as fictional a construct as traditional religious gods.
It isn't missing the point at all. It's consciously addressing the very thing that makes Dawkins (and atheism by popular association, like or or not) so needlessly repellent to so many people. No matter how many times you say "he isn't the face of atheism", that won't make it true. He IS to a great many people due to his fame and his outspoken nature, and he will continue to be perceived as such.
And give Scientology a few hundred years to iron out all the tacky bullshit. Who knows? It could definitely become less laughable (and dangerous). But let's not pretend that a very poorly-written, graceless creation story scribbled out by a hack scifi writer in a explicit attempt to create a religion for profit (something that is widely known and which colors most popular perceptions of Scientology) is directly comparable to the beauty of old, well-polished creation myths.
Sir Fragula said:
I aint afraid of no Holy Ghost.
:lol :lol
StoOgE said:
Hooray, I am a member of a slightly smaller (but still hated) minority!
I promise I would dislike you just as much if you were a theist.
