The tolerant atheist

Repost from the Dawkins thread http://able2know.org/topic/300352-8#post-6064440

Quote from Dawkins:

Quote:

I would be interested to hear from psychologists whether there is real evidence bearing on the question. My expectation would be that violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse, especially by a family member such as a father or grandfather, probably has a more damaging effect on a child’s mental well-being than sincerely believing in hell.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/69269/

The man needs EVIDENCE!

In the meantime, he has an "expectation" of what is "probable," especially if...

It's possible his "expectation" is well-founded, of course. But, without "evidence from psychologists" who can possibly know?

==================

Take your pick, Sukka. You can either:

1. "sincerely believe in hell, " or
2. Be in it, starting now.

Uhhh, tough one, sho nuff, but I think Imma go with the belief part this time.

Violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse just don't seem to have much appeal, somehow. Then again, if only it wasn't my own Pappy, I might think otherwise. Sure wish I had more evidence about it. I like to make "informed choices."

0 Replies

Phil Mason, an atheist who maintained a blog under the pseudonym of "thunderfoot," claims he was invited to join "free thought blogs," and was given Myers' personal assurance that his posts would not be censored in any way. It seems that "free thought blogs" was started by Myers for the express purpose of providing a haven from censorship in the blogging sphere. Mason claims he was kicked off the blog by Myers within a week, merely for disagreeing with Myers' stance concerning feminism.

He claims that Myers resorted to "the pointless use of invective; the extensive use of strawmen; the lack of any serious attempt to engage the arguments being made; and intolerance of non-conformity."

I don't know the whole story, of course, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Mason's account is accurate, as set forth in the video below:

1 Reply

@layman,

If anyone is interested, I found the full content of the post that Mason was banned for here:

1 Reply

@layman,

I took the time to read the responses solicited. They were overwhelmingly in favor of Mason and against Myers. Perhaps because the sample is "self-selecting," eh? Some typical responses:

Quote:

I am a woman and I kinda hate that people like PZ Myers claim to speak for me. I can have fun and I damn will say something if attention is not wanted. I don't need a pretentious old male twat to defend me (like PZ Myers). I'm not a precious jewel that needs protecting. I am an adult with my own voice and decisions to make.

Quote:

Years later I wonder if PZ Meyers has finally made pearls out of all that sand that was irritating his vagina, or if he's still the sniveling little twat he's always been. I vote 10 grains of sand.

Quote:

The thing that rattles me as a woman (and yes at times feminist ) is how these feminist keep going on about sexism but do not mention the horrific sexual abuses in other countries, such as female genital mutilation, child marriages and a male child bias that actively encourages parents to murder girl babies...The woman in other countries facing these problems need REAL help from the international community not just soundbites from microphones. Which is pethaps why they dont get any real help from the Rebecca Watsons' of the world...they are all piss and wind.

Why are they mad at Myers? He's just doing his job, ya know? The job of preachers is to preach.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Atheism based on 'scientific rationality' has no hope of changing attitudes. It is philosophically naive. But atheism based on the social perniciousness of religion, by exposing its tribalism and chauvinism , might have a better chance if those with the intelligence to understand those aspects made more effort to expose them. There is a lot of vested interest hypocrisy operating about 'mutual respect' which is used as a justification for 'tolerance'. But in a world of global communications and aggressive reach, parochial insularity and parochial solutions are being constantly eroded.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

But atheism based on the social perniciousness of religion, by exposing its tribalism and chauvinism , might have a better chance if those with the intelligence to understand those aspects made more effort to expose them.

Indeed, and not to forgot sexual repression, genital mutilation, etc. But it needs to be done in a reasonably careful way and the baby should not be thrown with the bath water. E.g. the current catholic pope is a positive force in this world. He helped lift the embargo on Cuba, pleads for the environment and a serious reckoning of climate change, recognized a Palestinian state, exorcised Bonner :-), etc. Similarly, there are a few Jewish and Muslim groups who try to use religion to promote dialogue and tolerance, and they should be treated with respect by non-believers.

Religion is also a source of moral values. That role is far too important to be dismissed without a strong secular replacement.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yes. But the question is whether religion as 'a repository of some moral values' outweighs religion as ' promising an afterlife to the faithful and salvation to sinners'. Harris's point is that the latter outweighs the former and is complicit in giving succour to all 'religious' martyrs.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

@fresco,
Quote:
'tolerance' could simply be an excuse for 'not getting involved'.

Olivier replied:
Do we need to get involved in the belief systems of out neighbours? Live and let live.

That (live & let live) may have been what fresco was getting at but another aspect, and the way I think it is more commonly displayed in society, is 'not getting involved personally or internally'. That is truly tragic in my view. If that is the idea behind 'tollerence', I don't see the appeal.

Whatever the flaws of militant atheists may be, non-involvement is not one of them (their declarations of 'I couldn't care less' notwithstanding) I find that most interesting.

1 Reply

Certainly holy rollers, who so commonly attempt to bully others into thinking as they do, would disparage any idea which enjoined them to mind their own business.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Like I said, 'minding their own business' is the gray hell most of the world is in.

Welcome to heaven Setanta.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Certainly holy rollers, who so commonly attempt to bully others into thinking as they do

Just curious, Do you really think anyone, holy rollers or otherwise, really think it's possible to bully someone into thinking as they do?
I don't think even bullies believe that.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I don't get it. Why does anyone needs to get involved in the way I think about, say, the tooth fairy?

I understand that stuff that are forced on other people are relevant for society, like forced marriage, circumcision and genital mutilation, denying health care to children on religious ground... Society should try and prevent harm being done to children under the name of religion (or under any ideology for that matter). But the personal, private beliefs of adults should be protected as long as they don't harm anyone other than themselves.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I don't get it. Why does anyone needs to get involved in the way I think about, say, the tooth fairy?

Admittedly, I tend to write in over-long sentences peppered with too many parentheticals which can be confusing. I see both you and Set read my statement as defending or excusing butting into other's beliefs.

I'll try to do better, but if you read it more carefully you will see that I was talking about involving yourself in your OWN beliefs, not those of others. Or as Socrates put it "The unexamined life is not worth living". We are the only ones who can examine our own lives.

But there really is no valid reason to accuse anyone here (on-line forums) for 'bullying' or 'butting into other's beliefs'. No one twisted any arms to get anyone to log-on and the ignore function is readily available. The ones complaining are, as Mr. Shakespeare put it, 'Protesting too much'.

Again, my complaint is only with those who refuse to butt into their own beliefs, (not that they are even aware of my disapproval :-) People on A2K don't fall into that category, at least not the ones in the theist/atheist threads. Aware or not, they are contemplating their own beliefs.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Harris is entitled to his point of view. Seems to me that many many people do NEED the solace of an afterlife, and I don't see much problem in that. Okay, there may be one problem in that, which is the opium-of-the-masses thing: the dream prevents people from getting rid of their oppressors...

In any case, religious martyrs figure very very low in my own list of enemies of mankind, well after Big Oil, the US industrial and military complex, FAUX Noose and other global villains.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Do you really think anyone, holy rollers or otherwise, really think it's possible to bully someone into thinking as they do?

I'm pretty sure they don't consider what they do as bullying.

They think they are educating/saving.

Education can cause people to think as others do.

There's nothing revolutionary in any of this.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I'll try to do better, but if you read it more carefully you will see that I was talking about involving yourself in your OWN beliefs, not those of others.

if that is the case, why do people seem to put so much energy into defending their own beliefs and trying to convince others that their beliefs/belief systems are correct?

what is the benefit to the person doing their own exploration in having others join them in that exploration?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

what is the benefit to the person doing their own exploration in having others join them in that exploration?

You have to be the final arbiter of your own beliefs but there are good and bad reasons why you might want to discuss them.

Maybe someone has thought of an angle you had not.
See if your reasoning holds up under criticism.
Some like to see if they can win an argument.
Some enjoy making fun of others.
Some need the reassurance that the ones who hold different beliefs are idiots.

But I think you knew this, so do you really never bounce your own world model off anyone else?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Some enjoy making fun of others. Some need the reassurance that the ones who hold different beliefs are idiots.

What more possible reason could anyone ever want, I ask ya!?

0 Replies

WTF do I use so many words. Wish I could put things as succinctly as layman.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

But I think you knew this, so do you really never bounce your own world model off anyone else?

it was a question for you to consider, to help you frame things more precisely.

1 Reply

The tolerant atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know