Fri, 23 July 2010
0:00:00 Comments[7]
|
- While I agree with the panel (or 'drunk tank' :P) members, I don't feel Richard's question is an appropriate analogy. An athiest who believes in woo is an athiest by definition. The lack of belief in any deity is *by definition* atheism, and says nothing of the person's attitudes toward other unproven belief systems.
The question of the attitudes of skeptics toward religious woo is nowhere as clear cut - some may say it is pathetic to claim to be a skeptic and yet not pursue the religious with the same zeal as say homeopaths, while others may only have a problem with the more outrageous testable claims and not want to get bogged down in a truly enormous war that would take pretty much all time and effort fighting something they don't really feel strongly about and would rather leave to the specifically atheist organisations.
It's just, wherever you lie on the spectrum I don't feel bad analogies help anyone. - We as skeptics are no less human than those who we accuse of irrational, flawed arguments, and hence we are vulnerable to the same emotional reactions. Giving in to this divides our cause rather than strengthens it.
Similarly, groups of skeptics are no less vulnerable to internal splits than any other group of people. To label debate and exploration of emerging trends in atheism as an "attack" is itself an attack that splits skeptics. It draws our attention to the need for thoughtful and logical responses to skeptical debate as well as to the objects of that debate, such as atheism. - Michael,
I was there and I don't remember anyone being non-skeptical of religion. What we had was Krissy saying she thought atheists (which was clarified soon after as being those who evangelise atheism as opposed to those who simply don't believe in god) irritate her. This has nothing at all to do with religion, let alone god. It is about how we go about criticising religion.
Your suggestion that unless we attack religion we are not "true skeptics" has a name: look up "no true Scotsman". It's a logical fallacy. Not everyone is interesteed in everything.
And the grand finale was "appalling lapse". Are you serious? Hyperbole, anyone? How about "I disagree but maybe I'm wrong?" - Self-styled skeptics who are skeptical about most subjects, bar one, (religion), are akin to so-called vegetarians who eat chicken or fish, and see no hypocrisy in their self-labels.
So-called skeptics, who stay their criticism of religion are no more 'skeptics' than vegetarians who eat chicken.
And those who support them are no less hypocritical.
Perhaps it was jet-lag that induced this appalling lapse. - I belong to an atheist group (in the US) and I've noticed a trend toward "non-acceptance" of believers as well. I think this has to do with the up-rise of fundamentalist Christianity in America and the fact that our supposedly unbreachable wall of separation of Church and State is being chipped away. We're tired of Christians writing our laws and discriminating against non-Christians, atheists and anyone else they don't agree with.
I would probably be called an "accommodationist" because I'm not so concerned about religion other than politically, but I certainly understand where this comes from.
Post your comment:
