Theology

[ChrisPachi]

Dawkins said it well. Ridicule that which is ridiculous.

Dawkins needs to relax a little. I'm all for breaking the taboo, but breaking it with ridicule is like f**king for virginity - the harder you push, the further you get from your goal. This is a war of attrition that Atheism can't lose, so ease into it. Hearts and minds.

[Sabby]

Perhaps in some instances a gentler approach is needed, but I don't think we should award Theistic claims any leniency. If someone presents a truth claim, it's fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[BANE]

Penn Jillette is an odd choice for an atheist example, as he himself made a living off of deception.

Read.

It's pretty obvious that Jillette's work is presented as entertainment and not reality, so, no, it's not deception.

It was a funny observation, not a serious critique. 

[maledoro]

Penn Jillette is an odd choice for an atheist example, as he himself made a living off of deception.

Read.

It's pretty obvious that Jillette's work is presented as entertainment and not reality, so, no, it's not deception.

It was a funny observation, not a serious critique. 

Winking smileys work wonders.

[saintssinphony]

Penn and Teller's show Bullshit had some great episodes on organized religion and about those scam artist  like John Edwards.  I think they do a great job of carrying on Houdini's work of exposing those assholes. 

I am glad to see how this Atheism thread has grown and all the ideas that have been talked about.  I haven't been on AVPG much lately and have enjoyed catching up on this thread and seeing everyone's comments.  I think this community has a great group of people who are incredibly smart and can communicate their ideas well. 

[ChrisPachi]

If someone presents a truth claim, it's fair game as far as I'm concerned.

You can dismantle a truth claim without ridiculing the claimant. Why do so many Atheists have a problem understanding that concept?

[Sabby]

You misunderstand.

You can dismantle a truth claim without ridiculing the claimant. Why do so many Atheists have a problem understanding that concept?

How does ridiculing a ridiculous claim = ridiculing the claimant? If a Scientist were to propose that gravity is a hoax concocted by fairies, I'd imagine many would deem his claim ridiculous, correct? Now, have they personally insulted him by rejecting his claim?

No. They haven't. The claim was the thing on trial, not the claimant. Why should Theists get to work under different rules?

They have a right to feel offended by their beliefs on trial, however childish that is, but this doesn't entitle them to special treatment.

[SiL]

How does ridiculing a ridiculous claim = ridiculing the claimant?

It doesn't, and he didn't say it does.

[Sabby]

He said you can dismantle a religious claim without personally ridiculing the claimant, and I'm saying that you can't ridicule a person through their claim. You can definitely add person ridicule onto your response, but your address of the claim is impersonal.

You cannot ridicule a claimant by ridiculing their claim. Example.

"Your claim is stupid" Addresses the claim.

"Your stupid" Addresses the claimant.

"Your claim is stupid and so are you for believing it" Addresses the claim and claimant.

[SiL]

Yes, and often people do the latter.

[Sabby]

Correct. I personally think those who hold ridiculous beliefs are themselves ridiculous, and I will tell them that. But when I tell them why their claims are ridiculous, they have no legitimate grounds for offense. I give them plenty of that elsewhere

Edit: I see how this may be misleading considering my later posts, so I will clarify. Telling someone they are ridiculous is not necessarily insulting. I've talked to a Witness once that was having a lot of troubling answering direct questions and was tripping all over herself, and I told her quite plainly that she was acting ridiculous. And she received this well. There was no offense intended or received. She knew how she seemed and tried to correct herself.

So no, I don't think it is out of line at all to call someone ridiculous for believing 2 of every animal survived 40 days in a wooden boat. It would be out of line to call them a dumb c**t, but they are being ridiculous and should be told that. If they want to take extreme offense at this, that's their own problem.

[SiL]

... so in fact what you meant when you first replied was, "You're right, you don't have to insult the claimant when debunking their claims, but it's too fun not to".

[Sabby]

No, let me try and break it down for you.

I said that it is fair to ridicule the ridiculous.

Chris said that you can dissect a claim without ridiculing the claimant.

I point out that one does not equal the other. The dissection itself cannot be the insult.

Pointing to examples of personal insult does not invalidate this.

[SiL]

He's not saying they're the same thing -- he's saying that when people debunk the claim they also go after the person making it. Which you just backed up.

[Sabby]

Eh, depends on the claim and how it's made. I'm perfectly capable of being civil and friendly while debating a Theist. I've had Mormons visit me maybe a dozen times in the last few years and some of those visits have been an hour long, and they all remained civil and friendly.

Please don't insinuate that I'm incapable of or unwilling to do this. When a Theist can present a claim to me in a calm and civil manner, they will get a similar response. Respect is key.

Edit: Elaborated on my earlier post to clarify.