I'm embarrased to be an Atheist / skeptic

This is a place for skeptics. If you come here and your game is weak you're going to get called on it. Sorry if you don't like it but no one made you come in here.
 
Thunderf00t is a very mild mannered and well spoken person. Another interesting and laid back voice for atheism is AronRa. He was on Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty, who can be abrasive when frustrated by people who are wasting his time. I recall seeing Thunderf00t's conversation with Ray Comfort...it was extremely difficult to watch, because, as he explained somewhere, he was trying so hard not to offend Ray.

Thunderf00t's videos "Why people laugh at creationists" are well worth watching.

Dawkins and Thunderf00t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SCcJslv7X0
 
Last edited:
plumjam said:
(Bolding mine).
Regarding the bolded part, I think that's transparently untrue.
Objectively it's a self-selecting crowd, and from that self-selecting crowd there'll be a minority that self-selects to be most vocal and/or obnoxious.

[...]

(As a slight caveat, there are honourable exceptions here, some of whom I would consider to be friends, albeit of a virtual nature)
Click to expand...

What issue you have you raised that we closed minded folk have been needlessly dismissive of?

Telepathy? Jesus? Dowsing? Santa Claus?

One possibility is that we're jerks. Another is that you just say silly things.

Those are not, of course, mutually exclusive.
 
The idea that atheists/sceptics have more reason to be embarrassed by the behaviour of those who share their views than theists/believers is bizarre. When was the last time an atheist blew up a building where people who disagree with abortion were going about their lawful business? Where's the equivalent of whatstheharm.net for scepticism?
 
JonathanQuick said:
I like you, Plumjam.

You speak truly. So many do not.
Click to expand...

Except when he doesn't. Ask him if he ever found any posts in which I called him a racist or a pedophile. He's had me on ignore for some time rather than admit that I never called him any such thing.
 
mactonite said:
I really like Michael Shermer. He seems to have mild manners.
Click to expand...

Take a guy like Sam Harris, who I've heard many a theist describe as among the most vicious of the "New Atheists," I've never heard him even raise his voice in a debate or interview, much less be rude to anyone.

The problem is that when people complain about "tone," they're really complaining about substance, but don't want to argue on that level.

So, if Sam Harris is a jerk because he says "God is not real" in the wrong way, what is the right way to say it?

The answer is, of course, "Don't say 'God is not real.'"
 
NewtonTrino said:
So what has Dawkins said that was any more impolite than what Sagan said?

Dawkins is a pussycat IMHO.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that many people are more offended by what they think Dawkins has said than what he's actually said. While he is not afraid to say that he views supernatural beliefs as delusional (and I agree with Trane that for many people this in itself is seen as a hateful thing to say), I have yet to see him act in a truly disrespectful way toward someone simply because they are theistic or otherwise superstitious.
 
I also find Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor (FFRF) to be very good at what they do without being obnoxious or self approving, but sometimes it pays to be sarcastic. I'm not sure the OP understands what kind of opposition these people have to face.
 
What we say is very threatening to a lot of people. If you take Sam Harris's position that your religious beliefs are not off the table for discussion people will be threatened by that no matter how nicely you say it. However, beliefs should be fair game if those beliefs are going to impact on society or public policy.

I'll paraphrase one of his arguments. If you said that Elvis was alive and in suspended animation under Disneyland along with Walt Disney you would very properly pay a social price for that. No one would complain if I asked you for evidence for this claim or dismissed you as a crank. Now, if you claim that some guy got nailed to a tree for three hours, stabbed in the gut and buried for three days and then came back from the dead (not survived this but died and was bodily resurrected) and I called you a crank I've violated a taboo. That taboo shouldn't be there. Your religious beliefs should be subject to demands for evidence. Or you can confine your beliefs to an unknowable super natural. If you want your beliefs to impact the real world the gloves have to come off and they have to be subject to scrutiny.
 
Craig4 said:
This is a place for skeptics. If you come here and your game is weak you're going to get called on it. Sorry if you don't like it but no one made you come in here.
Click to expand...

Absolutely- this is rule #1 of Skeptic Club.

That said, we can "call you out" with courtesy, and maybe even a joke or two, as opposed to speculating that you suffer some manner of mental handicap.

Who left this horse here? It could use another thorough beating...

Phil Plait- Don't Be A Dick

It is totally true that many woo-mongers come here to JREF, leave a steaming pile of "opinion", and then scurry away to friendlier corners of the Internet as quickly as they came. Its extremely frustrating when people show up to a forum based on debating ideas skeptically, and refuse to either debate, or think skeptically.

That said- no one, skeptic or woo-monger alike, enjoys being called "stupid" on a regular basis. And this animosity does no one any good anyway. JREF is at its best when providing solid evidence and critical-thinking to strange and interesting theories and questions. And let's face it- without the occasional steaming pile of "opinion", this place would get pretty boring. We need the woo-mongers to give us something to be skeptical about. Left to our own rational selves, without any logical fallacies or unfounded beliefs to keep us busy, we would either begin building utopia on Earth, or more likely, start picking away at each other after discovering that- deep down- even the best of us harbor some irrational theories of our own.

So to recap-

If you are going to get bent out of shape because someone calls your spade a spade, the "meanies" at JREF aren't going to help you much.

But anyone here willing to consider the possibility they are wrong- let's be nice to each other. I don't mind that you think I'm an idiot sometimes, hell, I think most of you are idiots sometimes too. But that doesn't mean we can't try and be polite with each other.
 
plumjam said:
(Bolding mine).

... declaration of personal opinion ...
Click to expand...

While I understand your opinion of the nature of this forum's members, I don't agree with it. Enthusiastic debates which get a little heated are fine with me; the fact that members here with a minority viewpoint sometimes feel a little piled on is a problem for them to solve by moving on to other forums where they can get in on the circle jerk.

Just out of curiosity, though, please provide a few links to these forums where people with contrary viewpoints debate passionately in a consistently civil manner. Please leave out links to sites where the members are all generally of like mind. I'll review the sites and try to figure out why you waste your time here when you could be hanging out there.
 
Mushy, back in 2001, not long after joining this forum, I created my first thread, titled, IIRC, "Why are the prominent skeptics such jerks?" I spoke specifically of Randi and Penn & Teller. I think that none of these gentlemen as jerks, but said that they often come across in their media appearances as cranky, obnoxious jerks. Contrary to your OP, I had often bemoaned over the years that Randi, one of my heroes, often came across in public appearances as just some cranky old man yelling out the window "All you psychics get off of my lawn!" I almost always agreed with what he said, but often cringed at how he said it. In that post I praised the calm (and thoroghly skeptical) approach of Carl Sagan back in the day. When Susan and I were first dating, she had never heard of Randi. I explained why I so highly admired him. When we later watched him on a few TV appearances, Susan did not care for Randi AT ALL, thinking him a cranky old fuddy-duddy (or words to that effect) When she finally met him in person, she later said to me "He's such a sweetheart!! You'd never know it from seeing him on television!" I've never seen nor read much of Dawkins, so can't speak to that, and have never heard of this Thunderf00t person. In my skeptical endeavors I have always tried (though not always succeeded) to be fairly calm and straightforward in my approach and demeanor. Phil Plait, the previous president of the JREF, is a "kinder, gentler" face of skepticism, and urges other skeptics to be less confrontational in their skeptical endeavors, as he did in his deservedly-popular "Don't Be a Dick!" presentation at TAM8 this year. So, not ALL representatives of skepticism fit your description, but many - too many - do. What do you propose be done about it?
 
I love Dawkins' writing. "The Selfish Gene" was one of the most brilliant things I've ever read. But when it comes to religion, I have some problems with him. When he spoke at TAM 3, his contention was that we need to cut religious moderates no slack because it is the moderates who enable the religious zealots. I find that highly debatable and I don't feel like atheists need to imitate the tactics of religious zealots by preaching to them. Lead by example, I say.
 
I've seen Dawkins in person and he couldn't be more polite. If the OP is typical, the sentiments come from objecting to having a level of certainty that there are no gods, rather than being rude about it as the OP implies.

We should all be agnostic rather than taking the position someone else is wrong.

Sorry, not buying it. There are no real gods.
Click to expand...

For someone who is a skeptic, you sure do display quite impressive psychic skills the way you read my mind there and all.


The idea that atheists/sceptics have more reason to be embarrassed by the behaviour of those who share their views than theists/believers is bizarre. When was the last time an atheist blew up a building where people who disagree with abortion were going about their lawful business? Where's the equivalent of whatstheharm.net for scepticism?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that pixel, there you have it folks. We are allowed to be condecending, obnoxious goons because religious nutjobs bomb buildings. Who wants to call up and inform Al Queda that its ok for them to bomb America because America dropped A bombs on Japan ?


Absolutely- this is rule #1 of Skeptic Club.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly the problem. The idea that to be a true skeptic you must over analyse everything anybody says and question them on it. Its a stupid mindset. Because what happens is you get tons of people jumping on the bandwagon and thinking they have to be confrontational to be a skeptic. People have lost sight of what they stand for. Like i've had idiots in this thread ask me for proof of my opinions. Its an opinion, a personal belief i don't need to prove it to anyone. This board might have some scientists but its 90% full of people who have looked up what "Strawman argument" and "ad hominum" mean and rustle though each thread trying to find a chance to use their new words.
 
mushy said:
For someone who is a skeptic, you sure do display quite impressive psychic skills the way you read my mind there and all.




Thanks for that pixel, there you have it folks. We are allowed to be condecending, obnoxious goons because religious nutjobs bomb buildings. Who wants to call up and inform Al Queda that its ok for them to bomb America because America dropped A bombs on Japan ?




Thats exactly the problem. The idea that to be a true skeptic you must over analyse everything anybody says and question them on it. Its a stupid mindset. Because what happens is you get tons of people jumping on the bandwagon and thinking they have to be confrontational to be a skeptic. People have lost sight of what they stand for. Like i've had idiots in this thread ask me for proof of my opinions. Its an opinion, a personal belief i don't need to prove it to anyone. This board might have some scientists but its 90% full of people who have looked up what "Strawman argument" and "ad hominum" mean and rustle though each thread trying to find a chance to use their new words.
Click to expand...
Hey pal, do you have an agenda, or something?

Hans
 
I just can't stand Dawkins. Firstly his new book which i just finished reading just annoys me. He spends too much time trying to be profound and insulting that he forgets the point of what he is trying to achieve. Calling creationists "History Deniers", I was cringing reading a lot of it.

Also his inability to meet the catholic church halfway is annoying. If his whole thing is evolution. Why have a problem with the catholic church? They teach that evolution is true, they teach that the flood etc was just a story and didn't really happen. They don't deny science they embrace it, however he isn't happy until they completely reject any sort of god. While i believe he is right in suggesting there is no god. What right does he have to tell anyone what to believe ? Its made worse by the fact that the Catholic church does not contradict science.
 
I don't have an agenda. I can just see things from different peoples perspective. I hate double standards and i'll point them out even if its from people who have the same viewpoint as myself.

Gawdzilla. You should not care because its what i think. You should care because it should be what you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom