I'm embarrased to be an Atheist / skeptic

[Akhenaten]

Its made worse by the fact that the Catholic church does not contradict science.

Tell us about transubstantiation, mushy.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawdzilla. You should not care because its what i think. You should care because it should be what you think.

I don't think you have the horsepower to tell me what I should think.

 

[Craig4]

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.

This one frustrates me a bit too. I really don't buy the idea that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria. However if we get there. If we get religion to a point where it's not trying to invade the science class. If we hit a point where it's not injecting itself in public policy I'm okay with that. If Prof. Mike Miller can be a Catholic and testify for the plantif in the Dover trial I'm okay with that. We ought not to be rejecting religious people who confine their beliefs to a supernatural arena and support science.

 

[bookitty]

There's a big difference between people on a forum that invites skeptics (among others) and people in real life who identify as skeptics. The discussions I had a TAM hit on many of the same subjects but there were a lot more jokes. The people from IIG are incredibly kind, intelligent and well-spoken. They also smile a lot. Skeptics in the pub meet-ups are a rollicking good time.

People who are actually skeptical activists, who go out and make things happen, who spend time writing intelligent thoughtful blogs related to skepticism, or in some other way are pro-active tend to spend less time here and more time on their own thing.

For many people here, this board is their skeptical activism and it isn't the same thing. In a conversation, you don't have full responsibility for the topic like you would have in a blog post, a lecture, or a book. The forum medium is a dialog, not a monologue. A dialog includes personality conflicts, a touch of opinion, the occasional disagreement. Tone is not an issue.

You can't really compare Carl Sagan's thoughtful well-scripted TV shows, or even P.Z. Myers firebrand blog to what is essentially a loosely moderated debate, populated by folks who are primarily anonymous and often have no vested interest in the outcome.

When this forum can work as skeptical activism, it does a brilliant job. (For example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189749) In the meantime, it's pretty much just the modern version of jawing around the wood-stove. Nothing that needs to be taken too seriously.

 

[mushy]

transubstantiation <- You seem to be addressing me like i am a catholic? I'm an Athiest. I wiki'd what you said and i have no idea what their views on that are. If they believe its a miracle is that really so bad. I thought the problem was denial of science, not that its daft if people believe in miracles.

But why stop there. Maybe he will take a trip to Australia and tell aborigines why their belief system is flawed.

Gawdzilla thats fine.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawdzilla thats fine.

So, your OP is pointless.

 

[mushy]

it's pretty much just the modern version of jawing around the wood-stove. Nothing that needs to be taken too seriously.

I got insulted today because i typed a quick question from my phone that had bad grammar and spelling. I was told if i made such a mistake in a job interview i would not get the job. I laughed at the idea that asking a quick bit of advice on a anonymous internet forum is comparable to a job interview. So is it serious or not, you can't have it both ways.

 

[mushy]

So, your OP is pointless.

No it's not. But thanks for your opinion. Lets me and you stop talking now.

 

[TraneWreck]

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.

The Catholic Church doesn't contradict science?

Well good, they can start passing out condoms in Africa.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No it's not. But thanks for your opinion. Lets me and you stop talking now.

STILL trying to tell me what to do? Good luck with that. You can shut up, in fact pre-OP would have been a good spot for that.

Folks, if anyone tells you they're "embarrassed for you", ask them why they let other people decide what they should be embarrassed about. Only tools let that happen.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

Go to Google and type Richard Dawkins Ru and see what they suggest (rude). Then try it with Richard Dawkins Po and see what they suggest (not polite). You can also try Why Is Richard Dawkins So and see what you get (Angry).

Even Dawkins seems to recognize how he's perceived:

http://www.frankmagazine.org/Dawkins.asp
FRANK: Will this consciousness-raising that you so aggressively pursue ever come about in any broad sense as a result of what has been coined "militant atheism," or is there a need for a middle path?

RD: That's a question of political tactics, and I don't know the answer. I'm not a very good politician, and it doesn't really occur to me to think about what's the best way to achieve something politically. If you look at the historical struggle for women's suffrage, for example, it's somewhat of a scandal that no modern democracy had females voting until the 20th century, with the single exception of New Zealand. Women who militantly campaigned for the right to vote were written off as strident extremists, and people accused them of alienating the very people whose support they should have been courting. But today, the idea of women not being allowed to vote is preposterous. Would you be moderate? Would you be respectful? You wouldn't.

Personally, I have more of a problem with that silly "Don't be a dick" speech than I do with people like Dawkins. The last thing skeptics need is another excuse to be quiet. Sure, we can argue the finer points of what it means or doesn't mean to be a dick, but the reality that far too many "polite" discussions end with "let's agree to disagree" instead of "your argument is pathetically unsupported and illogical."

James Randi didn't get to where he did by being a nice guy. A lot of people consider him a dick. A lot of people consider Dawkins to be a dick. If you point out how silly the notion transubstantiation is, you're considered a dick. Truth is, "dicks" get quoted and invited to speak to wider audiences.

Where's the evidence that "polite" skeptics are successful? Some people point out how StopSylvia is a shining example, but the reality is (based on e-mails shared here and other comments), a lot of people think RSL is a dick for even creating the site even though people have to self-select to get there. Lots of people considered the Suicide by Homeopathy crowd to be dicks with their demonstration, but at least it got some press.

Plujam makes some valid points about this board. Skeptics sit here and wait for the lone woo to venture into our camp, then gang up on them. I don't think that's a bad thing, but I agree that it happens. Some do cross the line into being what I personally consider being dicks, myself included. But the reality is when some anti-vaxx nut is throwing out all sorts crap about "big pharma" we skeptics need to point out that they are nuts. There aren't always two valid sides to the issue - sometimes people are just whacked, and being "polite" just doesn't cut it.

The biggest problem is that calling these people out is widely considered rude. It's warped that society doesn't consider (say) the anti-vaxx crowd rude, but they consider those fighting against them to be rude. It's not "rude" to proselytize, but it's considered rude to call people on their beliefs.

My point here is that being a "dick" is far less of a problem than being too "nice" in our expressing our thoughts. Obviously, every situation is unique, but from where I sit, more opportunities are lost for fear of being considered a dick than from actually being a dick.

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

Thank you, no.

 

[Sonny2]

Mushy, you come on and post something that offends everyone and is mostly nonsense and then you decide it's time to end the conversation, assumably because you're uncomfortable with the responses?

You kind of remind me of my occasionally charming but really naive and immature little 5 year old nephew.

 

[Pixel42]

Thanks for that pixel, there you have it folks. We are allowed to be condecending, obnoxious goons because religious nutjobs bomb buildings.

I did not say that, or anything remotely resembling it. It's this kind of wilful misrepresentation of what sceptics say which provokes the kind of sarcastic responses you find so objectionable.

 

[Tanstaafl]

transubstantiation <- You seem to be addressing me like i am a catholic? I'm an Athiest. I wiki'd what you said and i have no idea what their views on that are. If they believe its a miracle is that really so bad. I thought the problem was denial of science, not that its daft if people believe in miracles.

But why stop there. Maybe he will take a trip to Australia and tell aborigines why their belief system is flawed.

Gawdzilla thats fine.

His point was that their belief and teaching regarding transubstantiation is thoroughly anti-scientific.

 

[mushy]

The Catholic Church doesn't contradict science?

Well good, they can start passing out condoms in Africa.

Are you really as stupid to blame the spread of Aids in Africa on the catholic church ? This is the most annoying argument ever. Because its utter toss. The idea that the Africans don't wear condoms because of what the catholic church teaches. Well if they listed that intently to the catholic church they wouldn't sleep around and would only have sex with one person their whole life which if followed WOULD significantly reduce the spread of Aids.

STILL trying to tell me what to do?
Nope, its common knowledge it takes two people to talk. If i stop the conversation between me and you stops. Therefore i don't require or ask you to do anything.

 

[Mahaha]

No it's not. But thanks for your opinion. Lets me and you stop talking now.

Well, I didn't really got your whole purpose in the OP, but that's not important.
I think that some people are nice, some other are not, and skeptics are people. Maybe you incurred in some unlucky ones.

One thing I agree on: some of the people here are more "playing the role" of a skeptic, always contesting even the littlest assertion, sometimes even metaphors, and never appling common sense.

Still, I think that this got pretty heated considering how it started.
Let's make peace, ok?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've said my piece. I see no reason to debate my personal opinions.

Except perhaps that this forum is "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" and not simply a place to assert opinions and walk away.

 

[Sledge]

I got insulted today because i typed a quick question from my phone that had bad grammar and spelling.

Please quote this insult.

 

[mushy]

His point was that their belief and teaching regarding transubstantiation is thoroughly anti-scientific.

Yep, miracles do fall outside the realm of science. Then again they don't contradict it.

I did not say that, or anything remotely resembling it. It's this kind of wilful misrepresentation of what sceptics say which provokes the kind of sarcastic responses you find so objectionable.

No, it wasn't. You made some idiotic point about it being ok to be abrasive to religious people because extremists bombed and killed.

Mushy, you come on and post something that offends everyone and is mostly nonsense and then you decide it's time to end the conversation, assumably because you're uncomfortable with the responses?

You kind of remind me of my occasionally charming but really naive and immature little 5 year old nephew.

I'm not uncomfortable with the responses. I decided to end that branch of the conversation because it was getting nowhere. His posts had become petty and pointless.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not uncomfortable with the responses. I decided to end that branch of the conversation because it was getting nowhere. His posts had become petty and pointless.

You don't like anybody who disagrees with you, do you?