I Asked, And You Answered!

Because I was curious about how other people view the debate, I went around to a bunch of fantastic blogs that I follow and I asked the same question:

What is your opinion on the use of ridicule in a debate between a theist and an atheist? I know some people that say it's divisive and that it serves no purpose other than to drive a deeper wedge between groups. Can you talk about how you think it might be an effective tool when trying to change someone's mind about their belief?

In Reason,
-Reading Frame
http://reading-frame.blogspot.com

And boy, did you guys come up with some great answers. 

Hateful Atheist just posted the response, and as always the explanation was well worded and thought out.

Bible Belt Atheist had a response so good that other folks reposted his response.

And in a slight detraction from the rest, Underground Skeptic thinks that ridicule is divisive and serves no purpose.


My personal opinion is that it is important to differentiate between an idea and the person having that idea. Certain ideas are incredibly asinine and deserve ridicule. The difficulty lies with the fact that many, if not all, religious people perceive themselves as being indistinguishable from their belief, and so attacking their ideas sounds like a personal affront.

Satire seems like a great way to shock people into thinking harder about their belief, and we know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a magnificent piece of satire designed to show that intelligent design is really creationism dressed up in flowery pseudoscientific language.

It is also important to know your audience. Are you debating a theist because you really think you will change their mind, or are you doing it to defend your own beliefs, or are you doing it for someone else's benefit? It is a tactical considration that you must make, and it can go horribly wrong if you misjudge your audience.

Their responses have given me a lot of food for thought. Much obliged, gentlemen, for your time.

Stay Reasonable,
-RF

Excuses Excuses

I am just exhausted with all the stuff I have going on right now, and frankly I wonder if I'm not getting under the weather. More substantial posts might have to wait until after my Physics midterm.

Part three of the conversation between Bible Belt Atheist and the Muslim. Enjoy.

I am sick and tired of Catholics telling me not to tar all of them with the same brush because of "a few" child molesters. I mean, really. The basis of this person's argument was that there are other people doing it too, so nah. Big deal. Other people don't claim to be the infallible word of god and its vicar on earth, and still hide child rapists all over the globe. Seriously, it is difficult to claim the moral high ground if you know that they guy you are sending to Oregon raped a few kids. And I'd be delighted to not tar them all with the same brush if they were, you know, actually doing something about it. Like demanding jail sentences. Or refusing to tithe. Or walking, which a lot of them are doing. I just wish more of them would demand change. The ones who stay, I mean. Protesting by walking is pretty effective.

Ugh. The person who overheard the argument said to me "Let the meek inherit the earth. The rest of us will travel to the stars."

Discussion

There is a fascinating discussion going on over at Bible Belt Atheist (I really enjoy his clear, concise explanations to theists and non-theists alike) that one cannot understand the Koran (or Qur'an as this guy spells it)unless you read it in the original Arabic.

BBA goes on to refute that, quite neatly.

I get where the guy is coming from.... sort of. Some nuances are definitely lost in translation, and one could definitely argue that holy books are ultimate propaganda machines because of varying bizarre translations designed to say what translators wanted it to say. (For more on that go see Bart Ehrman's excellent lecture series on the topic: Misquoting Jesus. This is only part 1 of 10, but it is well worth the 100 minute watch)

But that kind of specious reasoning only holds if one is arguing AGAINST the validity of these books, not for. What this guy seems to be saying is that somehow maliciously the book was mistranslated to give Muslims a bad name. Which makes no sense whatsoever, because historically translations were used in an effort to conceal discrepancies and fix little scriptural mistakes in these kinds of texts. BBA goes off and finds 6 different translations of the same passage. Guess what? With some subtle differences, they all say the same thing. Imagine that.

But then the guy goes on to draw all sorts of absurd conclusions from this idea, like the idea that in order to be objective one must be a theist and other nonsense.

Objectivity =/= belief. Sorry, no can do. The closest one can get to this idea is to be skeptical. Skepticism is the closest we can get to be objective. Believing in something and then hunting for evidence to back up your beliefs is not, I'm afraid to say, objective. It is the story of every creationist ever. It is the story of every vaccine denier ever. Of every 9/11 truther, moon-landing denier, birther, woo-meister, crackpot theory ever.