Comments on: Don’t Confuse Your Dennett with your Dawkins http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/ Atheism with Positivity Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:18:17 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Infidel753 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-75655 Infidel753 Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:21:03 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/#comment-75655 There's no reason why anyone should think that all atheists are alike, any more than all people who don't believe in unicorns are alike. Any effort to establish one single "correct" approach to the problem of dealing with theists is doomed to failure. There’s no reason why anyone should think that all atheists are alike, any more than all people who don’t believe in unicorns are alike. Any effort to establish one single “correct” approach to the problem of dealing with theists is doomed to failure.

]]> By: Zachary Moore http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-75435 Zachary Moore Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:54:00 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/#comment-75435 I agree with Nica, even though I think that the main thrust should be to have atheists' voices be heard now. But I hope that I'm on the <a href="http://www.drzach.net/apologia.htm" rel="nofollow">leading edge </a>of what she's advocating. I agree with Nica, even though I think that the main thrust should be to have atheists’ voices be heard now. But I hope that I’m on the leading edge of what she’s advocating.

]]> By: Darryl http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-75433 Darryl Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:52:30 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/#comment-75433 <blockquote>Once we start, we might see that we have more in common than we all think. Once we all agree to disagree, once we set the rules that no side is trying to convince the other of its rightness or wrongness, once we clarify that we are simply trying to understand each other — and then move on to other topics of common interest — then the conversation about religion and its place in our society can really begin.</blockquote> Of course we have a lot in common--we have everything in common! This approach is naive or disingenuous. I can agree to converse with anyone on any topic of mutual interest, and to look for common ground rather than to argue, but when there is no common ground on those topics that one side or the other thinks are critical, then the conversation will either become an argument or it will end. If, for example, a presidential candidate thinks that the U.S. is a Christian nation, founded on a Christian Constitution, and that the only candidate to prefer is a Christian one, or that Creationism ought to be taught in our public schools, then we will not "agree to disagree," and I will be desperately trying to convince that person of his/her "wrongness." Honestly, all but universalist Christians only care about our views so that they can develop new strategies for converting us. "Know your enemy" is what this is about. And we are trying to disarm them by showing them that we are not monsters. I'm not on a fact-finding mission; I know as much about religious people as I need to know. I am in a defensive posture; they are attacking. They have to moderate their views, not I mine. I am already a moderate. Without their moderation there can be no polite conversations.

Once we start, we might see that we have more in common than we all think. Once we all agree to disagree, once we set the rules that no side is trying to convince the other of its rightness or wrongness, once we clarify that we are simply trying to understand each other — and then move on to other topics of common interest — then the conversation about religion and its place in our society can really begin.

Of course we have a lot in common–we have everything in common!

This approach is naive or disingenuous. I can agree to converse with anyone on any topic of mutual interest, and to look for common ground rather than to argue, but when there is no common ground on those topics that one side or the other thinks are critical, then the conversation will either become an argument or it will end.

If, for example, a presidential candidate thinks that the U.S. is a Christian nation, founded on a Christian Constitution, and that the only candidate to prefer is a Christian one, or that Creationism ought to be taught in our public schools, then we will not “agree to disagree,” and I will be desperately trying to convince that person of his/her “wrongness.”

Honestly, all but universalist Christians only care about our views so that they can develop new strategies for converting us. “Know your enemy” is what this is about. And we are trying to disarm them by showing them that we are not monsters. I’m not on a fact-finding mission; I know as much about religious people as I need to know.

I am in a defensive posture; they are attacking. They have to moderate their views, not I mine. I am already a moderate. Without their moderation there can be no polite conversations.

]]> By: Pamela http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-75418 Pamela Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:42:09 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/#comment-75418 Nicely written! Nicely written!

]]> By: Jonah Emery http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-75381 Jonah Emery Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:08:11 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/#comment-75381 What disturbs me as of late is the tendancy to label a human being anything at all - atheist or Christian! We are neither and that's where a bridge can be built. We all need the same things to live, we have the same basic survival instincts, and can get joy out of the same stuff. What's remarkable is that we are all searching for Truth and Good. That's why I love the label humanist... cause I am a human before I'm anything else. What disturbs me as of late is the tendancy to label a human being anything at all – atheist or Christian! We are neither and that’s where a bridge can be built. We all need the same things to live, we have the same basic survival instincts, and can get joy out of the same stuff.

What’s remarkable is that we are all searching for Truth and Good.

That’s why I love the label humanist… cause I am a human before I’m anything else.

]]> By: Calvin Moore http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-75376 Calvin Moore Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:17:10 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/#comment-75376 I'd like to let you know, because of Jim Henderson's 'Lost Interviews' and Hemant's book, <em>I Sold My Soul on eBay</em>, I am hosting a panel discussion at my Christian school called "LOST: a candid conversation with those outside the church about those inside the church," which features two atheists, a pagan, and a gnostic discussing why they're not believers (they'll also be speaking in our <em>Philosophy of Religion</em> class). It's not a debate. Just a real desire to understand where people are coming from. So, welcome to the table. We all gotta start somewhere. Check out our website www.sadcrc.wordpress.com. As soon as the convo takes place (Nov 12) they'll be audio up on the site and available on I-Tunes. I’d like to let you know, because of Jim Henderson’s ‘Lost Interviews’ and Hemant’s book, I Sold My Soul on eBay, I am hosting a panel discussion at my Christian school called “LOST: a candid conversation with those outside the church about those inside the church,” which features two atheists, a pagan, and a gnostic discussing why they’re not believers (they’ll also be speaking in our Philosophy of Religion class). It’s not a debate. Just a real desire to understand where people are coming from. So, welcome to the table. We all gotta start somewhere. Check out our website http://www.sadcrc.wordpress.com. As soon as the convo takes place (Nov 12) they’ll be audio up on the site and available on I-Tunes.

]]> By: Vincent http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-75362 Vincent Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:00:17 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/08/dont-confuse-your-dennett-with-your-dawkins/#comment-75362 While I agree that we should "set the rules that no side is trying to convince the other of its rightness or wrongness" before having a dialog, I don't think that applies to a dialog <em>about</em> religion. Put your religion aside to discuss child health care, but you can't do that with "religion and its place in our society" when many people believe their religion's purpose (and thus its place) is to convert everyone else to their way of thinking. While I agree that we should “set the rules that no side is trying to convince the other of its rightness or wrongness” before having a dialog, I don’t think that applies to a dialog about religion. Put your religion aside to discuss child health care, but you can’t do that with “religion and its place in our society” when many people believe their religion’s purpose (and thus its place) is to convert everyone else to their way of thinking.

]]>