1. Comment #4537 by Nick on November 4, 2006 at 11:48 am

Nice. Great points made here.

2. Comment #4555 by Benjamin on November 4, 2006 at 1:16 pm

Why do religious people get violently angry when you disagree with them/Where does the violent anger come from?

Doubt is a sin. You are tempting them to doubt (merely by saying reasonable things that appear to be true). It would be akin to being the passenger in a car, and violently yanking on the steering wheel. There is no equivelent in the rational world: if someone were to teach you something new about black holes, you would not for a moment think this new knowledge would condemn you to a literal eternity of being roasted alive.

3. Comment #4565 by Riley on November 4, 2006 at 2:25 pm

------------------------------------
from the round table:
Why do religious people get violently angry when you disagree with them/Where does the violent anger come from?
------------------------------------

This part of the discussion literally made me feel ill. I cringe and am ashamed to associate myself with this condescending and insulting attitude that I often come across among the atheist community.

I'll tell you why so many Christians respond with anger towards people like this: it's because people like this instead of being focused on the beliefs and ideas of others choose to be insult the *person*. Maybe the person deserves to be personally attacked, but it should be no mystery that when you do so you will make someone angry.

Re-listen to this section: one moment there are members bragging about playing the role of "bad cop" and the next they can't conceive of why they might provoke anger.
--

4. Comment #4572 by Riley on November 4, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Don't go to my neice or nephews baptism??

I'm sorry, this is asinine.

Am I to not celebrate Haloween??? (American holiday where children dress up as ghosts and goblins to celebrate a traditional pagan holiday).


You're taking yourselves waaaaay too seriously here. Get over yourselves people.


---

5. Comment #4592 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 4:47 pm

Riley, Christmas and Halloween are now completely secular holidays, really. But even if they weren't, there is nothing in them that inherently promotes or supports the religious indoctrination of children. You can't say the same about baptism.

I don't think any of us believes that sprinkling water on a baby's head and muttering a few prayers actually harms anyone, but it's usually a prelude to indoctrination. If we're going to begin raising consciousness about the labelling of children as Catholic, Muslism, etc, refusing to attend a baptism (and explaining why, of course) is a good starting point.

What I wouldn't advocate is something like a manifestation against baptism. Just like manifs against Christmas, it would look pedantic and, as you said, asinine.

Btw guys, I really enjoyed the discussion, well done.

6. Comment #4619 by The Science Pundit on November 4, 2006 at 9:53 pm

Luther, Sapient:
I was also working on converting the .wmv to a .mov file, but it looks like you guys have it under control.

Riley:
I think you're misunderstanding what everyone was saying. Margaret and the RRS are outspoken atheist activists; it would be totally hypocritical for them to attend a baptism. While I'm sure they would like it if every atheist followed their example, I don't think that that's what they're advocating.

It is similar to the way Professor Dawkins' words are misinterpreted. When he says that Darwin's theory of Evolution by natural selection led to his atheism, he's not saying that that will happen to you too (although I'm sure he wouldn't mind). I believe that if more people learned what Evolution was really about and hence had a better understanding of science and critical thinking, there woud be less religion. But not everyone will come to that conclusion. I'm just as perplexed as Dr. Dawkins at how intelligent Biologists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins can be theists. But that's the way it is.

And as for your first post, I did listen to the roundtable again and nothing I heard was as impertinent as the tone of your posts. Sorry.

--Javier

7. Comment #4657 by Riley on November 5, 2006 at 7:36 am

I apoloogize for letting my dispair get the better of me. I'm still left with a heavy disturbed feeling in my stomach having observed such bigotry in this video.

Constructive form:

1) Not taking part in community events such as baptisms will only isolate you from your friends and family. While it's true that Baptisms, Easter Egg hunts, and Christmas tree trimmings are all celebrations rooted in pagan religious traditions focused on children, participating in such activities doesn't require professing personal belief nor even support for the church in general, and it doesn't require indoctrinating children into a dogma. I myself was baptised - neither do I remember the event nor can I remember anyone referring to me as a "Christian child" after the event. AS such, your focus on baptism is I believe misplaced.

But what really bothers me is this: what you are promoting is an anti-social and divisive behavior that would isolate atheists and undermine common social connections among families and communities; ultimately making it harder, not easier, to participate in rational dialogue about the dangers of faith.

I heard "we must be careful not to be hypocrites" and it sounded to me like the speaker was referring to all atheists. If I misunderstood this, then I apologize.

2) Even worse for me was the presumptuous and dismissive characterization of the "angry believer". This is what I refer to when I describe members of the round table as being "condescending". This segment really did bring about an emotional physical response, right from my gut.

It is (no doubt, unintentional) the process of dehumanizing individuals; grouping them together, generalizing their characteristics, and apparently massaging away ones own insecurities by belittling another, largely anonymous group of people. If this is not full-blown bigotry, it is the fertilizer for it.

My family and my friends are mostly Christians or Muslims. They are generally very thoughtful and in many cases more intelligent than I am. My own thoughtful conclusions concerning the lack of evidence for their beliefs is not a label that separates me from them any more so than my preference for syrup on my pancakes.

When atheism stops being simply the conclusion one reaches based on rational consideration of evidence, and becomes something more like a support group, (or (god forbid) a belief system like a religion) then an "us versus them" mind-set becomes inevitable, and rational discussion with that manifested outsider group becomes impossible - isn't it difficult enough already to find opportunities for rational dialogue without creating and clarifying lines of demarcation?

By contrast, Professor Dawkins is spot-on when he observes that: "We are all atheists". Some of us just go one step further.



--

8. Comment #4737 by Anonymous on November 5, 2006 at 4:53 pm

I knew at age 6 when sent to a Roman Catholic indoctrination school that there were no gods and wondered why the people were so mean to kids. That was way back in the last century.

9. Comment #4764 by Riley on November 5, 2006 at 11:03 pm

Sapient,

There is a difference between criticizing irrational thought and personally slandering the people you claim to be irrational. Unlike attending a friend's wedding, it really is hypocrisy (e.g. a betrayal of reason).

I'm all for the pull-no-punches assault on religious claims that cannot be supported: Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins style. But this type of approach is distinctly different from abstractly attacking a people's culture, traditional activities, and celebratory ocassions and practices.

Sapient wrote: "Are you referring to us talking about why people get so angry when we talk about faith as being irrational? If so, and you don't agree with the reasons we think people get upset (ie challenging their entire worldview) then what do you think the reason is?"

Yes, you have it right. I'll give you another example to illustrate my point:
I referred to members of your panel as; presumptuous, ignorant, dismissive, and condescending. I'm sorry for being non-constructive and I apologize for being rude, yet what I said was observably defensible in at least the first two counts, if not all counts. Now imagine if acted as if though I couldn't guess why you might be offended by my calling you ignorant and condescending?

Imagine if I gathered a group of my friends together and had a nice long rant about you, we declare how inconceivable it is that you should be offended by our rationally defensible opinions about you, easily dismiss any provocation on our own part as contributing to you being offended, and instead presume that any one of a short list of explanations limited to demeaning characterizations about your psychological state is really the only possible explanation for your irate behavior. But that's not enough for us, my group won't leave this gossipy assassination of your character to our own private musings, we decide to broadcast our discussion about you all over the world.

Could this provoke some anger? maybe. But let's not even stop there.

Here's the *real* kicker: We don't limit our presumptions simply to you, the person we have observed, we generalize our demeaning characterizations about you to all people we believe to be of your type.

Predictably, I think this would stir up anger in at least a few people in any large enough group. And I believe the above example is a fair characterization of that segment of your round table discussion.

Sapient wrote: "Does it make sense for me to say the Catholic Church is the most corrupt organization on Earth, and then show support of my friend by attending ceremonies inside it's walls, in which he is supporting that organization?"

If you were a Canadian and someone who felt that the United States was "the most corrupt organization on Earth" , would it make any less sense then for you to reject me as a guest in your home because I am an American who pays taxes to the United States? If I'm stuck in an "us" vs "them" situation and you reject me, then I guess I have no place else to go but with "them"

Similarly, an Aunt of mine decided to take a principled stand of her own and not attend my brother's wedding. She did this because the wedding was not a Catholic wedding, it was a Protestant wedding. She herself may well have characterized this particular christian denomination as: " the most corrupt organization on Earth", and in that sense her position would be no different than yours - principled but petty. What did she accomplish? Seriously, what do you accomplish? She drove a wedge between herself and me and my brother - put a wet rag on the spirit of a once-in-a-life-time celebration. Even if you live in a family where such a wedge already exists between you and others, what's the point of digging that wedge in deeper? I'm really serious about this: given the cost, what net benefit is there? Even if you see a net benefit (which I can't), wouldn't even more be accomplished through dialogue? Doesn't the cause of reason require dialogue? ... and doesn't this route you choose destroy opportunities for dialogue and increase the likelihood of violence?

Sapient wrote: "Religion created that 'us vs them' mentality many hundreds of years ago"

Yes, and you are further entrenching that mentality; driving the wedge deeper. Do you seriously believe that the "bad cop" strategy (which for example, Sean Hannity and Ann coulter have employed with true mastery) has *ever* helped the cause of reason? If not reason, then what? The banner of atheism?

You seem to be confirming my worst fear, which is that you see rational discussion as simply one of many *methods* in a strategic power struggle, rather than seeing it as the goal itself.


--

10. Comment #44468 by kementari on May 24, 2007 at 10:05 pm

Riley,

You make some good points... they're ones that I myself made a while ago, before I read "End of Faith" and got into some very long debates about the nature of the dialogue with believers. The long and short of what I want to say here is that no two opportunities to engage that debate are the same, and different approaches may be needed with the same person on different days.

It's a subtle art, this whole teaching business.

<< Do you seriously believe that the "bad cop" strategy (which for example, Sean Hannity and Ann coulter have employed with true mastery) has *ever* helped to improve dialogue? If not dialogue, then what? >>

Point One: What Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter do has nothing to do with what Richard and the RSS are doing. The "bad cop" approach is one that can be used to crash through really firmly entrenched rationalizations and actually make an impact. It has nothing to do with spreading fear and manipulating the masses for the sake of a buck, and everything to do with consciousness raising in the face of vague apologetics.

Point Two: Yes, the "bad cop" approach works. I can tell you plainly that I glided right by all of those kindly and politely worded explanations of atheism. They were mostly ineffective when it came to the dirty work of helping me to explore what I really believed and what I was just pretending to believe for the sake of comfort in a vast and indifferent Universe.

<< If I'm stuck in an "us" vs "them" situation and you reject me, then I guess I have no place else to go but with "them" >>

It's pretty safe to say that if I showed up in my step-mother's church to celebrate a baptism, someone in the congregation would throw holy water on me and expect me to melt. That would be embarrassing for everyone involved... although it might be a good opportunity to try speaking in tongues.

Kidding. Sort of.

Seriously, though. As a firmly convinced atheist, my presence in church would be a bit of an insult to that side of the family for a baptism. It would take away from their enjoyment of the event to know that there was someone in their midst who was not genuinely there to celebrate. So no, I wouldn't go to a baptism on that side of the family.

For my moderate Catholic-in-name-only family? I'd find a convenient excuse to miss the church ceremony (they would understand, and appreciate my tact) but show up at the house afterwards and get together with family. They don't mind that I'm an atheist, because they don't really believe in God.

Weddings and funerals are a little different, as those ceremonies are only provisionally about God, and mainly about a celebration or a reflection on life. I feel only mildly uncomfortable there, and (more importantly) have never felt that my presence made others uncomfortable.

<< Even if you see a net benefit (which I can't), wouldn't more be accomplished through dialogue? >>

There's a time and a place for everything. Another person's church is not the place to challenge their faith. It's a respect thing... I respect their right to worship in peace at church, without worrying about whether or not God is going to smite them for not killing the unbeliever in their midst in a Deutoronomy-style smackdown.

<< Here's the *real* kicker: We don't limit our presumptions simply to you, the person we have observed, we generalize our demeaning characterizations about you to all people we believe to be of your type. >>

There are so many layers of irony to this statement that I almost don't know where to start. You're making a generalization about how wrong it is to generalize. Perhaps it would be helpful to begin by saying that there is indeed a subset of Christian Americans that could be readily described with the words "Likely to Bomb Abortion Clinics." It may also help to point out that Sapient and Dr. Dawkins no doubt hear from them on a regular basis. It would be simply freakish if they didn't discuss this phenomenon, but instead pretended that this group didn't exist. The part of the show that made you cringe was inspired specifically by mailbags that you probably wouldn't enjoy reading, with letters from this very intellectually challenged subset of our culture, filled with threats and swear words in the name of God.

Are you seriously saying that we shouldn't say anything about this type of behavior and what causes it? Or that we should treat these individuals with respect that they do not deserve?

<< You seem to be confirming my worst fear, which is that you see rational discussion as simply one of many *methods* in a strategic power struggle, rather than seeing it as the goal itself. >>

Life itself is a strategic power struggle, and every choice we make has elements of the same. Different responses are appropriate at different times, but in the end the goal is to feel good about the decisions we make and know that they were the best ones that we could have made at the time.

Bottom line: If playing the "bad cop" doesn't feel right to you, don't do it. But don't automatically assume that there is no place for it in the dialogue. I owe a debt of gratitude to the people who sat me down in front of the mirror, took off my rose colored glasses, and crushed them mercilessly with a debate that made me very uncomfortable. It took me months to recover, but I'm a much happier person for it.

Other Comments by kementari

11. Comment #44472 by kementari on May 24, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Sapient,

<< Religion created that us vs them mentality many hundreds of years ago, to pretend it doesn't exist (except for maybe in the future) is to deny reality. >>

*applause*

Very well said. I'll add to that by saying that ignoring the violent extremists (even if it is "just words") and downplaying the significance of their beliefs does not serve that future terribly well. Our children's children's children, who will almost certainly live under the shadow of volatile theocracies armed with long-range nuclear weapons, will not thank us if we do not give the ideological battle the full attention it deserves.

With strong leadership, that future might not come to pass. Thanks for everything you do, and great show.

Other Comments by kementari

12. Comment #83082 by Riley on October 28, 2007 at 10:11 pm

You're making a generalization about how wrong it is to generalize. Perhaps it would be helpful to begin by saying that there is indeed a subset of Christian Americans that could be readily described with the words "Likely to Bomb Abortion Clinics."

The discussion here was on the topic of why religious people get angry and send hate mail. If you want to talk about those who are likely to bomb abortion clinics, then talk about those people specifically. If someone sends you a death threat, then talk about the people who send death threats.

The rational response squad on their Internet broadcast target religious people for ridicule. Why then should it be any wonder that they receive hate mail as a result? And honestly, I think they're proud to get sent hate mail. It's a bit silly that Sapient would brag on behalf of the "squad" about the role they proudly serve as the "bad cop", and then act confounded as to why they incite anger and get sent hate. Do you honestly believe that religious people as a group are much different in their response to public ridicule than any other group? Is there any doubt that another podcast dedicated to the public ridicule of atheists would not receive angry and impassioned hate mail from atheists?

I owe a debt of gratitude to the people who sat me down in front of the mirror, took off my rose colored glasses, and crushed them mercilessly with a debate that made me very uncomfortable.

kementari, I don't criticize the idea that making someone feel uncomfortable is useful; it may even be necessary. I'm all for a tough no-nonsense in-your-face reckoning with the facts.

It's the abandonment of reason (e.g. personal insults) for the sake of "the greater cause" that I criticize.

Other Comments by Riley