tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6688206534233983296..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Intolerance, Militancy, Fundamentalism, and Trying to Eradicate ReligionAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77377591862991133522007-04-01T18:02:00.000-06:002007-04-01T18:02:00.000-06:00Alonzo,Another great post! However, I caught a par...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>Another great post! However, I caught a particularly unfortunate typo <BR/><BR/>"<EM>Criticism Is NOT Intollerance</EM>"<BR/><BR/>It should read <STRONG>Intolerance</STRONG> ;-)<BR/><BR/>Hope I don't sound too critical or intolerant ;-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27383755953566460202007-04-01T08:58:00.001-06:002007-04-01T08:58:00.001-06:00PatrickimoIn a blog entry called, Theism as Mental...<B>Patrickimo</B><BR/><BR/>In a blog entry called, <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/02/theism-as-mental-illness-or-child-abuse.html" REL="nofollow">Theism as Mental Illness or Child Abuse</A> I wrote about some of the claims made by the Rational Response Squad, and addressed the ethics of <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/02/blasphemy-challenge.html" REL="nofollow">The Blasphemy Challenge</A> specifically in a blog entry by that name.<BR/><BR/>In short, I consider The Blasphemy Challenge itself to have merit, though some of the claims made by the Rational Response Squad to be wrong.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77071135632488137362007-04-01T08:58:00.000-06:002007-04-01T08:58:00.000-06:00GregYou can see some of my views on cooperation wi...<B>Greg</B><BR/><BR/>You can see some of my views on cooperation with theists in <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/02/michael-shermer-art-of-political.html" REL="nofollow">Michael Shermer: The Art of Political Compromise</A> and <A HTTP://ATHEISTETHICIST.BLOGSPOT.COM/2007/03/EVANGELICALS-AGAINST-GLOBAL-WARMING.HTML HREF="" REL="nofollow">Evangelicals against Global Warming.</A><BR/><BR/>Basically, they state that in a political system such as ours, succcess requires forming an alliance among the best 51% against the worst 49%. Because forming an alliance among he best 49% against the worst 51% simply results in giving power to the worst 51%.<BR/><BR/>Still, the national story is simply not going to shift to "the positive aspects of Humanism."<BR/><BR/>Note what I said above about the media's need to draw eyeballs to advertisements. Nobody is interested in "The positive aspects of humanism." Making that 'the story' simply means that the eyeballs are going to go somewhere else.<BR/><BR/>For example, it would be absurd to argue that the Holocaust happened because of a failure on the part of Jews to speak about the positive aspects of Judeism. It is just as easy to see the absurdity of Africans and Native Americans saying in the years befor 1860, "What we need to do is to speak more about the positive aspects of our culture."<BR/><BR/>Bigots simply ignore these claims. That's what bigotry does - it closes the mind to evidence. Heck, if these people can ignore the evidence for evolution, what makes you think you can get them to pay attention to evidence for moral atheists?<BR/><BR/>I would hold that the focus needs to be on the worst 49%. Who are they? What do they believe? Who are they harming? Success comes from uniting the victims of the worst 49% - the people who will be robbed of life, health, liberty, and quality of life by the worst 49% - in a campaign against them.<BR/><BR/>On this model, in America, one of the things we can say about the best 51% is that a majority of them will be Christian.<BR/><BR/>That's the objective real-world fact of the matter.<BR/><BR/>Plan accordingly.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58250494260234407532007-04-01T08:57:00.000-06:002007-04-01T08:57:00.000-06:00ChrisThe media's job is to provide a tool for link...<B>Chris</B><BR/><BR/>The media's job is to provide a tool for linking eyeballs to advertisements. Since, in America, the vast majority of those eyeballs are Christian, and because they have a strong anti-atheist bias, and because people tend to turn their eyes away from things that they do not like, we can expect to see a strong correlation between success in media and pro-Christian/anti-atheist sentiments. Christians have decided to accept Jews and Muslims, so this appeal to Christian eyeballs can speak in neutral terms of these religions. However, the public attitude prevents them from doing anything but reflect the strong American anti-atheist sentiment.<BR/><BR/>As I wrote in <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/11/atheist-evangelism-and-political.html" REL="nofollow">Atheist Evangelism and Political Strategy</A>, captivating entertainment requires a good villain. Atheists do not get to choose who their spokesmen are. That will be determined by the media, paying strict attention to the "eyeballs to ads" bottom line.<BR/><BR/>Some argue that Harris and Dawkins (and the Rational Response SQuad) should change their tone. However, I do not think that this will do any good. They have a role to play in the media quest for eyeballs. If they refuse to play this part any more, then the media will find somebody who will. Failure to do so will cost them too many eyeballs.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-64728268913400661292007-03-31T17:45:00.000-06:002007-03-31T17:45:00.000-06:00P.S. The article you mention, "Atheists Split Ove...P.S. The article you mention, "Atheists Split Over Message"? There's a typo in the link. It should read "guardian" not "aguardian."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77174123870827622262007-03-31T17:41:00.000-06:002007-03-31T17:41:00.000-06:00Hi Atheist Ethicist, another great blog entry! I'...Hi Atheist Ethicist, another great blog entry! I'm for just about everything you've said, with one possible exception: what are your thoughts on the "Rational" Response Squad (http://www.rationalresponders.com)? While certainly it can be argued that they are simply "stunt activist punks" who have not YET picked up a weapon to destroy the "mental disorder" known as theism, I remain concerned about the intensity of their philosophy and activities. Would love to hear your POV on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66083717668712293062007-03-31T10:50:00.000-06:002007-03-31T10:50:00.000-06:00Nice blog. Thanks for the discussion, even for the...Nice blog. Thanks for the discussion, even for the criticism. I agree that a lot of the language was sensationalized in this piece, for example see the most recent entry at thenewhumanism.org where I talk about never having actually called Dawkins and Harris "atheist fundamentalists." But I do want to see the national and international story shift, now that Richard and Sam have helped us get some needed momentum going, to be more about the positive aspects of Humanism-- that it can and must be diverse, inclusive, and inspiring-- and how we can work together with those who do not now and may never share our views on religion and theism, to nonetheless build a better world for all people.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again!<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>Greg M. Epstein<BR/>Humanist Chaplain of Harvard UniversityGreg Epsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07908475744381434317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-68741605472143668022007-03-31T08:57:00.000-06:002007-03-31T08:57:00.000-06:00Militant atheists. Those are the guys hijacking p...Militant atheists. Those are the guys hijacking planes so they can crash them into churches, right?<BR/><BR/>The media is so attached to the idea that they have to pretend both sides of a dispute are equal, even when they clearly aren't, that it forces them into this kind of absurd position: equating uncompromising speakers like Dawkins not with uncompromising speakers like Dobson, but with actual violent thugs like al Qaeda. Because otherwise they would have to admit that atheism doesn't *have* any violent thugs killing people for the glory of no god.<BR/><BR/>There's a big difference between verbal criticism, however harsh, and militancy. The AP ought not sweep it under the rug.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com