He tackles the question of "why does faith deserve respect"? He tackles it the way Ray Lewis or Lawrence Taylor would tackle a 130 pound running back - a five yard loss and straight to the disabled list. He's a little more direct than I usually am, but I can't really disagree with anything he says - and articulates very well. I just wonder if it's a beneficial way of dissuading a person of faith from continuing down that path.
Friday, October 19, 2007
This Guy Could Be My Mean Cousin!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
130 lb running back? I don't even want to think what Lawrence Taylor would do to a 130 lb running back.
I think it would entail something more than a 5 yard loss. Graveside services would be contemplated.
I saw this a few months ago and really liked it, but I imagine he comes off as a pompous ass to people who disagree (as blunt people usually do). But I don't know if bluntness is a bad idea. I think we need all kinds of communication, from soft to direct.
Of course it's not a beneficial way of dissuading a person of faith from continuing down that path. But I don't think Condell is trying to do that. He's merely responding to the delusionals who insist that we respect their views. Why should we?
As far as finding a beneficial etc.: It can't be done. But who cares? That's not what we atheists should concern ourselves with. We should just work together to keep that person of faith from blocking our path, wherever it happens to lead.
All over the Atheosphere, I see arguments aimed at religionists. As I've said dozens of times in both posts and comments, I think these attempts at debate are worthless. We don't convert anyone, and we waste time that could much better be spent making sure the theocrats don't take over.
It is fun, though, poking holes in their little sham, isn't it?
Exterminator said: "As far as finding a beneficial etc.: It can't be done. But who cares? That's not what we atheists should concern ourselves with."
but goes on to admit: "It is fun, though, poking holes in their little sham, isn't it?"
It is. But not only that, I disagree that we can't change them and that we shouldn't try. I do agree that it shouldn't be our MAIN focus of energy (and you pointed out precisely what our main concerns should be). But in daily life I meet a lot of decent people who are interested in trying to sway me to religion. I love to talk to them. I know I have never "changed" them. But I also know I've planted seeds. It may get watered and later fertilized, or it might not.
People are changing somewhere every day, my friend. There is a reason they are changing. It isn't happening in a vacuum. Reasonable conversation is a starting place.
Pat Condell is actually VERY reasonable. And, as Ordinary Girl said, we need all kinds of communication. I know when I was a 17 year old believer, I would have given him a listen. Other would not. So, again, this is the basis of my wondering if it's the "best" way.
Post a Comment