Tone trolls

[trotsky]

Came across this blog post - it's 2 years old but spot on.

http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/tone-trolls.html

The wrong thing to do, however, is wring one's hands in dismay, and lecture other atheists on how they're doing it wrong. Oh, my ears and whiskers! How teddibly uncivil! Theists will never agree with us if we challenge them! (See also: 'I'm an atheist, BUT...')

Well, frankly, not challenging them doesn't do much to move their opinion either. How well did not challenging them work for the last 50 years? Dumping your religion and becoming an atheist is hard. What could possibly be the impetus for someone to do it if all they hear is comforting church hymns, along with the song of the non-confrontational atheist? I know people don't like hearing that their religion is wrong. But I do say it from time to time because I think it's important to keep pushing the Overton Window in that direction. I don't know whether my sledgehammer wakes people up, or whether it just attracts the newly awakened, but more and more people are becoming aware of the absurdities of religion, and we're forming a vibrant and noisy community of non-believers.

[onager]

1. Falling onto the fainting couch as I clutch my pearls...

Posted 2 years ago? Amazing. I thought the writer had been reading our very own Religion group recently.

"I'm an atheist BUT..."

Exactly.

And its corollary: "I'm a Lib'rul Xian who likes atheists. As long as they stay where they belong, under the bus."

[dmallind]

2. true, but we should not be doctrinaire about phrases

I don't think I use "I'm an atheist but..." that often myself but I certainly could, and can imagine many more reasonable usages than mine

.....Love the Latin masses of Bach or Bruckner
Think St. Peter's has possibly the most gorgeous interior of any building
Welcome the many intellectual advances made by clerics, from Duns Scotus to Jacques Lemaitre

are just a few I could use.

The "tone" argument also has exceptions. Sure it's used by people who are either as atheistic as Pat Robertson or as interested in self-worth and empowerment as Uncle Tom for the most part, but it can be a valid argument. This may sound laughable coming from me but some atheists go too far. I probably have been one. It's not that we need to mollycoddle belevers. Quite the opposite, we should indeed rattle cages and shake comfort zones. We should not hide from calling absurd beliefs absurdities or hypocritical beliefs hypocrisies. But I do cringe when I hear calls for legal restrictions, for religious instruction in and of itself to be named child abuse, or for believERS (as opposed to belieFS) to be named idiotic.

[trotsky]

3. What if some believers ARE idiotic?

Like David Koresh? Could we not have said that raising a child in the Branch Davidian compound in that religion would be child abuse?

[dmallind]

4. Oh some certainly are, and deserve to be called so. I'm just against a blanket A=B

Maybe I'm getting sucked into the "generic=universal" whine a bit, but I see a distinction between:

"these beliefs are idiotic" - both true and appropriate IMO
"believers are idiotic" - neither of the above without qualification
"this/these believers are idiotic" - can be both if applied for a valid reason. Koresh's folks being a good example yes.

[trotsky]

5. The tricky part, then, is figuring out where the line is drawn.

If we agree SOME beliefs (and believers) are idiotic, it's basically going to come down to what each person deems them such. Look at one of the prominent holier-than-thous in the Religion group who is on record declaring a group of Christians to be "dumbasses," for instance.

[Starboard Tack]

8. There are "dumbasses" of all stripes

and this group is a safe haven for atheists and agnostics, not a place to call out other DU members.

[trotsky]

10. I called no one out.

But thanks for bringing your special ray of sunshine.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Respectfully, I would disagree

Look at one of the prominent holier-than-thous in the Religion group who is on record declaring a group of Christians to be "dumbasses," for instance.

If that isn't a blatant call out on another DU member, I'd like to know what is.

[trotsky]

12. What's the name I called out?

I am merely pointing out specific hypocritical behavior, and not naming any names.

[cleanhippie]

6. We all have our own ideas about what is and is not abuse.

For me, indoctrinating a child into a religion just as they become self-aware (around two) and then constantly feeding them daily doses of insanity that directly contradicts the natural world we live in, and mentally crippling them by withholding the tools needed to think critically, ask questions, and seek real answers, IS child abuse.

There IS a wide and discernible gap between religious instruction and religious indoctrination. And far too often, if not mostly, its indoctrination.


We frequently hear of "parents rights", but forget about "parents responsibility" and "childrens right to a quality education." I fell its not a right to indoctrinate one's child, but it IS the child's right and parents responsibility to ensure that they get a quality education that is not full of supernatural gobbledygook.

[Starboard Tack]

9. I'm with you on that

There IS a wide and discernible gap between religious instruction and religious indoctrination. And far too often, if not mostly, its indoctrination.

Fortunately, I was only subjected to the former, and that in moderate doses.

[Starboard Tack]

7. +1. Couldn't agree more.

[JNelson6563]

16. "But" negates all that came before it.

I say "I'm an atheist and...."

Sure there are times when a fellow unbeliever may get worked up and take out the flame thrower. No one agrees this is the way to win hearts and minds, surely all can agree it is the mark of a mere mortal experiencing human emotions. We all have our moments where perhaps we could have been more diplomatic or clever in our word choice.

It is easy and reasonable to overlook such things if you really have experienced atheism. I often suspect though that there are a very few who like to claim atheism but only to serve as a cloak of credibility among atheists. Fortunately this is very rare.

As to making an argument effectively, you make valid points. Agree completely with your last paragraph.

Hoping my post comes across as lucid.

Julie

[skepticscott]

13. Pretty much spot-on

Except for the time frame. Last 50 years? More like 2000. The tone trolls are in complete denial of the fact that keeping our mouths shut and trying to play nice with the religionists has gotten the cause of atheism exactly nowhere for as long as you'd care to mention, and that it is only in the last few decades, when atheists and anti-theists have stopped shying away from anything that might give even the most sensitive of true believers the slightest offense, that atheists can no longer be regarded with blithe dismissal.

Most religious believers will mistrust or hate us no matter what we say or do, so why not speak the unvarnished truth, and forget about hurting feelings that will NEVER be favorable towards us in any case?

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Challenge or don't challenge

I think the outcome is going to be the same with more or fewer hard feelings. I appreciate those who are willing to have the conversation with the faithful. For me it doesn't seem to be a particularly productive use of my time. Kind of the same as talking to my Republican neighbors about politics. Pointless.

[trotsky]

15. You may want to re-read the blog post.

I don't think it has much to do at all with converting the faithful, but having all points of view in the dialog. We want those on the sidelines to see that it's OK to call bullshit, bullshit. Centuries of silence and politely deferring to the religious have gotten us where? How did that work for homosexuality, BTW?

[JNelson6563]

17. Yes, we need to speak out.

But there is that little part of the brain that slams shut as soon as certain differing viewpoints come into the fore.

If we want to win anyone over (and bob knows many are convince-able!) it will be through more diplomatic efforts than "You all suck" or whatever.

I don't believe the religious should be treated with kid gloves, hell no! Well over that bullshit. Just no need to shame or otherwise make someone feel negative, I always remind myself they are as duped as anyone else has ever been. Some cling to it for their very lives, they will be that way forever. Many though are not so far gone from reality though and could very respond to reason. It seems to me to be happening with a greater frequency than ever these days. Thank bob!

Julie

[dimbear]

18. It's worth remembering that we are the future, if there is one. Let's

walk in the sunlight.