Phil Plait - Don't be a dick

Hi Mr Jack,I basically agree with what Huntard says. The most preferable approach is reasonableness, and civil debate. that's what this site aims for and it's a good policy. The recent conversation with ICDESIGN does indeed stand out as a good example of an exchange that was getting heated, but, with a little prodding form Percy and a few comparatively temperate messages, it's calmed right down. That's great. This is the kind of conversation that I prefer on this forum, because it's the kind that is most likely to result in mutual understanding. It's also the best way to change someone's mind.On the other hand, how likely is it that die-hard creationists will respond to this approach? I won't name any EvC members, but I think you know the kind of person that I'm talking about. How useful is it to engage in protracted civil exchanges with hucksters like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind or Bill Dembski? They are never going to respond to that approach. They are never going to learn from their own mistakes. They are never going to change their minds. The only approach left, it seems to me, is open ridicule.Sometimes the only rational response is to simply point at the idiot, point out his idiocy and laugh. That may not be very nice, but it is effective. It shouldn't be one's first choice of tactic perhaps and some people occasionally go too far, but mockery is still a valid tactic.Mutate and Survive

Hi BD, That's because people who don't play golf aren't usually of the opinion that golf is harmful to society. That's partly because people who don't collect stamps don't think that stamp-collecting harms society and partly because the last two are just paranoid delusions of yours.I would love to see some evidence that atheists really are engaged in a conspiracy to hide the Christian books in stores, as you keep claiming. Well... I say that. Obviously, you don't have any evidence, on account of it being your own private paranoid delusion. If you were to track down some examples though, I stand ready to denounce such behaviour as excessively dickish.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I really don't know where you got this from; No. I agree with him. You are acting as though you have revealed some great contradiction here. You haven't. This is false. Not all atheists think this way. There are some who are less hostile to religion, and even some who regret not being able to believe in religions they wish were true.My point is that given that many atheists do believe that religion harms society, you should not be surprised when some of us speak out against it. This does not, however, make atheism a religion, any more than criticising drug abuse constitutes a form of drug abuse. Only some atheists are actively engaged in efforts to dissuade others from religious belief. There are many other atheists who are not so engaged, who don't much care whether people are religious or not. I suspect that your perceptions of the average atheist have been coloured by your experiences. Message boards like this will have many members who like to actively debate religion, but they are obviously less likely to have members who are completely apathetic about the subject.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Bluejay, I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you. Which aspect? The stamp collecting and golf metaphors are not intended to compare the seriousness of stamp-collecting/golf and religion, nor their impact on society. Agreed. I couldn't think of a better metaphor at the time. A better comparison might be that fascism is a political philosophy, just as anti-fascism might be called a political philosophy (of sorts). This doesn't mean though, that by critiquing fascism, one becomes a fascist.In neither the drug abuse metaphor, nor the fascism metaphor do I intend to imply that religion is morally equivalent to either (in fact, some drugs are quite harmless. ). I just chose extreme examples in order to highlight how ludicrous BD's position is.BD seems to be suggesting that in opposing religion, atheists prove themselves to actually be religious. We do not become fascists merely by opposing fascism, nor do all atheists become religious merely because there exists a semi-organised campaign against religion.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod