Please go to http://www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the link to the room to talk to her.

Thanks!

addressing the least uninteresting off-topic point, the lack of a direct causal link between religion and violence (or at least, the unprovability of same) is a totally different thing from not being confident that eliminating religion would reduce violence. doing something obviously terrible to another human being requires either a deep personal need, a considerable exercise in courage, or allegiance to a set of empty words which offers untestable platitudes about how terrible things are actually good.

OMGF, I'm not arguing about this topic with you anymore. I know from past experience that if I do, this will happen:

1. You're going to quote something at me which either proves my point, or doesn't matter.

2. I'm going to tell you so, and may or may not point out that I've read it already.

3. You're going to say, "unbelievers just don't understand what Passage X really means."

4. I'm going to say, "Ockham's Razor".

5. You're going to accuse me of not reading the material, or else of being in league with some theological Axis of Evil.

I'm telling you that this thing you're pointing at is a tree, and by the way, there's a whole forest full of them. You're squinting real hard and insisting it's broccoli. I'm willing to listen to anyone else on this particular topic, and you should of course feel free to talk to Rob, TheNerd, Mr. Speiser, etc. But I think you and I have reached our point of stasis, here. Any further dialogue between us would just fall back into two separate, and mutually uncomprehending, monologues. For the things I did to bring us to that pass, I'm sorry.

PS: When I apologized to Dr. Hartung, he requested a link to the thread. I had to tell him that I'd lost track of it in the chaos that is my-life-at-present. Now that it's been pointed out to me again, I can send it along to him; it's his decision, of course, what he does with it. Thank you, OMGF. (No, no, for reals this time! :) )

Yes, Sir or Madam, I was referring to you. We were, in fact, talking about the same source material: our difference, as I explained in my last post, is that you consistently interpret the text according to its most favorable meaning, even when such...intellectual gymnastics aren't justified by either text or context. Since it's clear that you're not going to budge from that position, and nobody else seemed interested one way or the other, I stopped paying attention some time ago.

Yeah, like the part where you claimed that Dawkins insulted all those who disagree with him and I pointed to the relevant passage and showed you how you had missed the part about him saying that he was being overly optimistic about his goals? Yeah, that was some intellectual gymnastics going on there. You know, he flat out said something different from what you claimed he said, so I must be off my rocker to think that you were wrong. But, hey, whatever. I invite anyone to go back and take a look and see how you retreated from my point by point dip into the source material into a blubbering mass of, "I'm right, I just know it and I'm going to continue to say I'm right no matter what you say." See, you're still doing it.

Are you referring to me as the one who "was either in denial about the material we were discussing, or had a poor grasp of reading skills?" If so, I invite anyone to go back and look at that thread and see if that is the case, considering that I actually pulled the source material and pointed out which passages you were wrong about?

Yes, Sir or Madam, I was referring to you. We were, in fact, talking about the same source material: our difference, as I explained in my last post, is that you consistently interpret the text according to its most favorable meaning, even when such...intellectual gymnastics aren't justified by either text or context. Since it's clear that you're not going to budge from that position, and nobody else seemed interested one way or the other, I stopped paying attention some time ago.

Jim Speiser

I'm afraid I envision some closet atheists out there thinking to themselves, Well, I'm not sure I believe in God, but I don't want to come out as an atheist, lest I become a supercilious, angry snob like that Hitchens.

Yes, just so, Mr. Speiser! The sad fact is that it's not enough to be right, you've got to be both right and polite. Any given movement, "consciousness-raising" or "New Atheism" included, can do itself more good by laying out honey than vinegar.

(That's part of the reason why I'm excited about Ebon's book. Ebonmuse has been more focused on the positive aspects of an atheist lifestyle than many other atheist writers, who tend to focus on the negative aspects of a religious lifestyle. But that's neither here nor there.)

And then there was Madalyn. Ms. O'Hare had to be the most unpleasant human being I've ever encountered, non-believer or otherwise.

Perhaps it is Hitchens, O'Hare, and their ilk that inspired Ms. Quan's diatribe. If so, I might be inclined to forgive her excesses. There IS a difference between standing up and making reasoned and pointed commentary on the irrationality of religion, and just standing up and being a complete jerk. We do ourselves no favor by crossing that line.

In general, the thing that gets me is that whenever someone complains about how vociferous "certain" atheists are, I can't help but think that there's a big component in there about how atheists aren't allowed to speak up at all, lest they be labeled as too boisterous, or too vehement, or too whatever. It's a cultural stereotype that needs to end now. As others have pointed out, if bringing up criticisms of religion that are based on fact and logical arguments, and using reason are too forward for some, well then tough. I'd rather be logical and reasonable and speak out against oppression and tyrany than sit idly by and let it happen just so that I don't offend anyone's overly delicate sensibilities. And, if you think that the words "oppression" and "tyrany" are over the top, then you haven't been paying attention.

But I am obliged to say that I sympathize with Rob and TheNerd. (Who, I am also obliged to note, are also atheists.) That shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, including Rob, and if Rob wants to reject my sympathy that is of course fine with me. But -- and I am terribly sorry for this -- yes, Ebon, many atheists carry their atheism to unreasonable levels. Quan's criticisms seem to be aimed at these particular atheists, rather than atheism in general. There is a difference between speaking out against legitimate violence actually motivated by a particular faith, and (for example) condemning all faiths, or inventing illegitimate claims of violence.

(Though on the other hand, if we could all refrain from making snide comments about "Great Truths"...that would be cool with me.)

I recall we had a conversation about this issue maybe...five or six months ago? I've lost track of that discussion. In part, this was because my computer time was then engaged in confessing my sins to one Dr. Hartung, and finding out what his actual theories were. (I'm still not convinced, but neither will I misrepresent them again.) In part, this was because I am reluctantly convinced that my main opponent was either in denial about the material we were discussing, or had a poor grasp of reading skills. And in part, this was because my opponent seems to have the equal and opposite conviction about me. That said, if anybody wants to revive that conversation, here or (preferably) in the original thread, I'd certainly be welcome to it, though I can't promise to be any less sporadic than I was a few months back.

She says she finds that "embarrassing". She "cringes" every time one of those "noisy nonbelievers" speaks out. She says we're "resentful". And most relevantly, she says she'd be happy to tolerate the embarrassment if evangelical atheism could end violence - but she doesn't think it can. The inescapable conclusion is that we should not speak out even when violence is done in the name of religion, because according to her, it's just embarrassing and doesn't accomplish anything.